Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Bus Grant

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the procedures for payment of bus grant.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister assure the House that it is possible for him to identify, and if necessary to publish, the amount of grant available to each bus? If that is the position now, why was it not so in the past?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows that, when the scheme was in its earlier stages, stage payments were allowed to local authorities. That appears to have given rise to an enormous amount of paper work. When the hon. Gentleman pressed me about the individual cost of fleet line buses, I found that the first 17 buses gave rise to 50 pages of paper work. The local authorities bought more than 2,000 buses. I do not agree that we should spend all the time and money involved on providing individual costs for each bus, going back into the past. The present system allows us to know exactly how the money is being spent.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm, or deny, the reports in both The Guardian and the Financial Times about the rather peculiar bus grant that we are told the Minister proposes to make to private operators in those areas where, the Ministry is trying to bribe county councils to introduce trial areas?

Mr. Clarke: The stories are ill-founded. The new bus grant has nothing to do with the creation of trial areas. Currently, we are considering transport supplementary grants for all local authorities that made bids this year. We shall consider the bids made by counties contemplating trial areas for any transitional costs that might arise.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is much better to have competition in bus transport than to adopt the sort of plans proposed by the London Labour Party—at great expense to London ratepayers if the Labour Party ever comes to power—whereby free transport will be provided out of the rates?

Mr. Clarke: The first fruits of competition that we are seeing in the context of inter-city coaches, following the Transport Act 1980, are all to the good of consumers. They are leading to an extension of better services. I agree that if the London Labour Party introduces in London the sort of policies that have been introduced in South Yorkshire by the South Yorkshire Labour Party, the eventual cost to the ratepayers will be ruinous. Presumably, the Labour Party will then be obliged by reality to abandon its policy.

Roads (Expenditure)

Mr. Booth: asked the Minister of Transport what the decline in the capital expenditure of roads as a proportion of the total public expenditure will he between 1978–79 and 1983–84 on the basis of the Government's proposed public expenditure plans.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): Decisions on the allocation in future years of trunk road resources between construction and maintenance have yet to be made. However, I expect expenditure on capital projects to remain broadly in line with the 0·4 per cent. of total public expenditure in Great Britain which it represented in 1978–79 and 1979–80.
Capital expenditure on local roads in 1978–79 and 1979–80 was also about 0·4 per cent. of public expenditure. The amount spent in future years will depend on decisions taken by local authorities.

Mr. Booth: As the total expenditure on road construction and maintenance in


England is planned to fall between 1978–79 and 1983–84, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of public expenditure, how can the Minister assure us that there will not be a further cut in the construction programme, as maintenance costs on all motorways and trunk roads are bound to rise during that period? Does the planned reduction of total road construction and maintenance expenditure from £1,123 million in 1978–79 to £1,065 million in 1983–84—which is a cut in the percentage of public expenditure on roads—indicate that the Government intend the road programme to bear more than a fair share of the total public expenditure cuts?

Mr. Fowler: I am not trying to give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute guarantee about the future. This is an extremely curious issue for the Opposition to latch upon. The largest cuts in road spending in Britain, and in the history of the road programme, were implemented by the previous Labour Administration, when expenditure went down by half. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at our record for the first year he will see that we spent more on motorways and trunk roads than was spent in either of the last two years of the Labour Government.

Mr. Farr: In view of the savage cuts that have been made in local areas, particularly in expenditure on education, social services and many other sectors, does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is no earthly reason why some of these rather fanciful new road schemes, which I gather are still in the Ministry pipeline, should not at the least be deferred for a considerable period, and preferably abandoned?

Mr. Fowler: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that there are fanciful schemes in our programme. We have pruned them. Indeed, all the representations that I am receiving refer in particular to the need for bypasses to be built. The important thing is that, as far as possible, we should seek to protect investment programmes, and that is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: In view of the many repairs to our motorways, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that our motorways are not of an adequate standard? When considering the future of motorways, will he ensure that they are

built to a higher standard? Will he also bear in mind that road conditions throughout the country are deteriorating so much that more accidents are bound to occur and that something more should be done to make certain that our roads are brought up to a good standard?

Mr. Fowler: There is no evidence to support the hon. Gentleman's contention that our roads are not up to standard. In fact, the examinations and inquiries carried out by the local authorities show the opposite to be the case. Clearly, when we come to motorways, such as the Ml, there is no question but that because of the amount of traffic over and above the projected increases, and particularly the increase in heavy goods vehicle traffic, maintenance will continue to be necessary. There is no escaping that question.

Transport Policy

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the coordination of policy on transport by road, rail and water.

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. My policy is to create the conditions in which full and fair competition between these different modes of transport can flourish.

Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend's policy of introducing more private capital into road transport and the subsidiary activities of British Rail is to be welcomed, but will he consider whether this could be extended to waterways; in particular to the operation of the British Waterways Board, for example with regard to the Kennet and Avon canal? In that context, will he have discussions with his right hon. Friend at the Department of the Environment to see whether responsibility for the waterways should be transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. Fowler: I am prepared to enter into discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is in charge of waterways. There might be a case for looking at the arrangement here, but I do not think that it is the No. 1 priority at present. As to privatisation, we shall of course consider all opportunities to introduce private capital, because we believe that


that is in the interests of the industries concerned.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give just one concrete example of a so-called "condition" that he has created or helped to create?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, indeed. The condition that we have created in relation to new coach services operating on motorways is a dramatic and pleasing example of what can happen, not by the introduction of some enormous national plan—which apparently is the policy of the Labour Party—but by the removal of restrictions to allow competition to take place. The result is that new services have developed and prices have come down. That has not happened too often in public transport in the past.

Mr. fain Mills: Is my right hon Friend aware that there are examples of stretches of waterways where private investors are keen to provide capital on a co-operative basis with the British Waterways Board?

Mr. Fowler: I am prepared, obviously in consultation with my right hon. Friend, to look at any plans of that kind.

Mr. Spearing: If there is to be proper competition between roadway and waterway, should they not be funded in the same way; in other words, by public capital? Will he look at this matter in conjunction with the report of the inland shipping group of the Inland Waterways Association, which is due to be published today?

Mr. Fowler: I shall look at it. If the report is due to be published today, I look forward to seeing it.

Motor Cycles (Noise Levels)

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation further to reduce the permitted noise level of motor cycles; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend made regulations on 6 August which reduce the maximum noise levels permitted for new motor cycles from 1982. We are considering even more stringent limits for all vehicles for the longer term.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that helpful reply. Does he agree that if it were possible further to reduce the permitted noise levels that would not only protect the environment but might act as a de facto import control with regard to Japanese bikes? In view of what he has said, will he keep in close touch with the Home Office to ensure that, as far as possible, the new regulations are enforced by the police?

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure whether regulations will distinguish between motor cycles on the basis of their origin. The EEC regulations that we have implemented have taken us in the right direction, and we intend to go further. Enforcement can be difficult where people modify motor cycles compared with their original manufacture. The police have difficulties, but they bring 11,000 successful prosecutions each year for noisy vehicles of all kinds. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so that that enforcement effort can be maintained.

Mr. Hardy: Despite the changes in regulations, is not this noise still inflicted in large measure in support of the Japanese balance of payments? Should not a higher priority be afforded to safety than to noise? In that regard, has the Minister noted the extremely serious comments of the South Yorkshire coroner? Will he take note of those and show rather more urgent concern about reducing the current heavy toll of young lives?

Mr. Clarke: There is considerable concern about noise on the roads, whether the noise be Japanese in origin or of any other nationality. As to motor cycle safety, I have noted the remarks of the South Yorkshire coroner. We have been considering this problem for some time, and my right hon. Friend is due to answer a later question on the subject.

Road Safety

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Minister of Transport if he will mount a new advertising campaign using all forms of advertising to promote road safety in general


and to reduce the level of road casualties among schoolchildren in particular.

Mr. Fowler: Advertising and publicity have a vital role to play in road safety, particularly in respect to the young. I am spending nearly £5 million this year on publicity campaigns. This is in addition to voluntary sponsorship such as that provided by the Sunday Mirror, "glow worm" campaign and from firms such as the Co-operative Wholesale Society and VG stores.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that particularly helpful reply, which is characteristic of him. Will he outline the measures that he might introduce in legislation during the forthcoming Session?

Mr. Fowler: With a supplementary question such as that, my hon. Friend's constituency must need a bypass or something of that kind. He knows that in addition to the legislation that I hope we shall put forward there will be a continuing need for publicity and advertising. If one takes drinking and driving as an example, the Blennerhassett committee proposed that the advertising and publicity campaign should continue, and I am sure that that is right.

Mr. Skinner: Did the Minister say "Jesus wants him for a glow worm"? With regard to road safety, especially in relation to children, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the problems that children face when crossing the road is to find a way to do so in Tory areas such as Cumbria, where 41 school crossing patrols have just been dismissed? How does the Minister have the cheek to talk about keeping death off the roads when he is driving young children to their death?

Mr. Fowler: That is a pretty stupid comment from the hon. Gentleman. I do not regard road safety as an issue of party politics, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, which I know he does not want to do, he will see that the 1979 figures for child safety and child casualties, are, I am glad to say, the best since 1958. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.

British Transport Docks Board

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Minister of Transport what criteria he

employs in the choice of members of local advisory boards of the British Transport Docks Board.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I appoint members whose experience and local knowledge appear to me to be best suited to the local boards' needs.

Dr. Marshall: When does the Minister expect to fill the vacancy that has arisen on the Humber advisory board by a nominee from the Goole chamber of commerce and shipping?

Mr. Clarke: I assume that the next step will be that the Goole and district chamber of commerce will put forward a new representative. I regret that steps that have so far been taken, whereby one of the original nominees was appointed by me and the hon. Gentleman then led a campaign against him inside the chamber to force him to resign.
For some reason that commendable candidate has been somewhat shabbily treated in the locality.

A564 (Blythe Bridge—Uttoxeter)

Mr. Knox: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has reached a decision on the inspector's report following the public inquiry into the Blythe bridge to Uttoxeter section of the A564 Stoke to Derby link.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The inspector's report is still being considered. I hope that it will be possible to announce a decision soon.

Mr. Knox: Since the inspector's report was submitted some months ago, does not my hon. and learned Friend think that it is time that a decision was published? Many of my constituents consider that this road is required urgently, and the sooner it is started the better.

Mr. Clarke: We received the report in June of this year, and I am anxious in all these cases that there should not be too great a delay between receiving the inspector's report and giving a decision. It is not simply a question of reading the report; it is also a question of evaluating highly complex arguments and producing a detailed decision letter that will stand up to scrutiny in the courts of law and elsewhere when a final decision is taken. I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong views


about the road. We have been proceeding with the matter as quickly as possible.

British Railways

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport when last he discussed the financial structure of British Railways with the chairman.

Mr. Fowler: I have regular meetings with the chairman to discuss current policy issues, including finance. I met him last week and I shall meet him again in two weeks.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the railways are facing a crisis? Passenger takings and freight receipts are down and fares are going up, and yet British Rail is still asked to manage 11,000 miles of permanent way. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are now 19 British Rail employees for every mile of permanent way? Is it not time that British Rail was given a new flexibility about the extent of the railway system in this country and about its freedom to reduce the gross overmanning on the railways?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is obviously right when he says that productivity must be the key to the future of British Rail. Clearly, that is the sort of policy that the chairman of British Rail, Sir Peter Parker, is putting forward. We recognise the problems of British Rail, and we have increased its external finance limit by £40 million in the current year. That decision has been welcomed by British Rail and gives it the sort of flexibility that it should have.

Mr. Booth: In his discussions with Sir Peter Parker, will the Minister give him a clear assurance that British Rail will not be required to sell any of its subsidiaries prematurely, in adverse financial conditions, to meet any part of its capital programme?

Mr. Fowler: The sale of assets must continue to be part of British Rail's programme—a policy that is agreed between us. The decision on the timing of that sale depends upon British Rail. It will have to take into account a number of factors. including its ability to live within the external finance limit. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the holding company, which will in future

incorporate these subsidiary companies, will be wholly-owned by British Rail. That policy has been welcomed by the British Railways Board.

Mr. Haselhurst: What hope can my right hon. Friend hold out for the replacement of out-of-date rolling stock which came into service shortly after the Second World War, unless something is done about the financial structure of British Rail?

Mr. Fowler: The investment that is taking place in British Rail is the investment programme, obviously revalued, that we inherited from the previous Labour Government. We have 95 HSTs either in service or authorised, and a rolling programme of 220 EMUs. It could be, and is, argued by some in British Rail that we should do more, but I hope that everyone will understand how much public money goes into the railway system.

Mr. Bagier: Is the Minister aware that the amount of public money that is spent by this country on helping its railways falls tremendously short of the levels of its competitors? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the money does not come from the public purse to aid the railways to compete, it can come only from vastly increased fares, which will affect everyone who uses the railway system?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. That is one option, but the other is to increase the efficiency and productivity of British Rail. That is what the British Railways Board is trying to do. It has put forward a number of proposals. I understand the hon. Gentleman's close interest in the railway industry, and I hope that all those who are associated with the industry will support the chairman of the board in what he is trying to do.

Car-sharing

Mr. Parris: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take further steps to publicise the car-sharing proposals contained in the Transport Bill.

Mr. Fowler: The leaflets and posters that we have distributed have had an enthusiastic response. Great interest is being shown both by local newspapers and local radio. There has also been an


excellent response from employers and voluntary organisations, with whom I am in close touch. I am now considering building on this with a further publicity campaign in the new year.

Mr. Parris: As I am reassured by that answer, I have no further question.

Mr. Moate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one of the recent radio advertisements inviting people to write in for these leaflets, half the radio time was taken up by asking them to write to the Department of Transport Publicity Stores, Building 3, Victoria Road, South Ruislip, Middlesex HA4 ONZ? Would it be possible to produce a longer address, to ensure that any would-be car user is guaranteed to get writer's cramp?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a defect in our campaign which I confess I did not know about. I shall follow it up, and I should be most surprised if we could not improve on it.

Imported Trucks (Type Approval)

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Minister of Transport what further discussions he has had with Leyland Vehicles Ltd. in connection with type approval regulations for imported trucks.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend is today publishing a consultation paper about a national type approval scheme for trucks. It would apply to both imported and home-produced vehicles. Leyland Vehicles Ltd. will be closely involved in those talks.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this Conservative initiative is greatly welcomed by Leyland Vehicles Ltd., particularly as the success of the new T45, which is potentially a world-beating truck, is dependent on fair competition from outside?

Mr. Clarke: We hoped that this move would help the industry, and I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend. who has a close interest in Leyland Trucks. I recently visited Leyland Trucks and saw examples of the T45. It is a pity that more Opposition Members do not fall into the practice of thanking my right hon. Friend and myself for our answers and for the steps that we are taking in this and other areas.

Mr. Dalyell: As Leyland Vehicles, Bathgate is in my constituency, may I ask whether the Government are looking at the problems that arise from homologation?

Mr. Clarke: Yes.

British Railways

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister for Transport if he will provide special funding to British Railways to enable them to open freight branch lines for passenger transport.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, Sir. The Government already provide general support for existing passenger rail services.
It is up to the Railways Board, in consultation with local authorities, to decide whether it would be worthwhile to introduce new services on freight-only lines.

Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is absurd that in a developing area such as that covered by the Walsall to Rugeley line, which is used extensively by mainline passenger transport during the weekend, the line should be available only for commerce during the week? In view of the low Government subsidy to British Rail and the Government's mean attitude in cutting public expenditure for local authorities, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the only hope for these lines is to provide special Government support?

Mr. Clarke: British Rail has to take a decision, with our encouragement, about the commercial prospects for a new passenger railway service and whether it is likely to cover its costs. On the question of support, it should also look to the local authorities. In the West Midlands, for instance, the county council is giving support to an extensive system of new passenger services.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the answer that was given a moment ago about British Rail to the effect that we were continuing the previous Government's policy, is a low level of expectancy on this side of the House? We expect our Government to do better than the Labour Government. On that basis, will my hon. and learned Friend look at the situation in France—taking the point made by my hon. Friend


the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair Wilson)—where the track bed is owned by the State? Is it not time that we started considering the fundamental changes that are needed to enable British Rail to compete effectively in the 1980s?
Mr. Clarke: One thing that we have not altered in the Labour Government's policy is that we have not made cuts in the investment ceiling of British Rail. That shows that in making the necessary cuts in public expenditure we have regard to the need to protect capital programmes and the future.
We have looked at the position in France, but there are considerable difficulties if one starts to separate responsibility, whether financial or otherwise, for the track and the infrastructure of the railways from the people who have to operate the trains.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Will the Minister take note of the fact that passing the buck to the metropolitan county councils does not work, as they are not willing to spend more money on promoting more services? Is the Minister now telling the House that the best hope for those living in the metropolitan county council areas is for Labour to take control of all of them next May?

Mr. Clarke: The passenger transport authorities are sucessfully supporting extensive passenger services, and the Conservative-controlled West Midlands county council is maintaining support for services, many of them on new lines brought back into passenger service.
Any evaluation of the prospects for a new passenger service must have some regard to what it will cost the public, whether through the local authority or the Government, and British Rail has to make a sensible judgment of the likely passenger traffic.

Departmental Staff

Mr. Heddle: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the introduction of further measures to reduce Civil Service staff in his Department.

Mr. Fowler: We plan to make a reduction of 2,645 staff by 1 April 1984. This is equivalent to some 19 per cent. of staff in post on 1 March 1979. In

addition, major changes planned in the road construction sub-units will result in a contraction of 1,600 in the staff on the payroll of my Department. On this basis there will in all be a reduction of nearly 30 per cent. But I shall continue the search for further savings.

Mr. Heddle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Would it be possible for him to project the likely additional staff savings to 1984? Will he indicate to the House whether the sale of heavy vehicle testing stations at some time in the future would have any effect on the figures?

Mr. Fowler: The savings from the policy on HGV testing stations is taken account of in the figures that I have just given to my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Evans: Will not the reduction of staff in the road construction units be more than matched by an increase in staff from private contractors, probably at great expense to the taxpayer?

Mr. Fowler: I am glad to tell the House that we have had about 100 proposals from consultants on the work that they want to take over. The work that they will be taking over will, of course, include the criteria for choosing consultants. and also criteria on the staff. We believe that it is better for the road building programme and for the country generally that there should be this shift from public to private enterprise.

Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the support on the Conservative Benches for his closing of many of the road construction units? Will he make sure that he is not deflected in any way from this plan?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the arrangements that we have are to the benefit not only of the taxpayer and the country generally, but, in the long term, of the staff who are involved.

Mr. Park: When considering the privatisation of heavy goods vehicle testing, will the Minister take note of the fact that the people who operate the heavy goods vehicles are extremely dubious about handing over the testing to private enterprise, as they feel that they


would not get the same impartial judgment that they get in the present circumstances?

Mr. Fowler: I understand the concern. One of the reasons for it is, I believe, a misunderstanding of what is being proposed. What we are proposing is that the purely mechanical process of the annual check should go to the private sector. We shall, of course, continue to set the standards and to operate by our own staff the policing function of spot checks. I do not think that note has been taken of that point.

Drinking and Driving

Mr. Dubs: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received about the introduction of random breathalyser tests.

Mr. lain Mills: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on timing of legislation affecting drinking and driving.

Mr. Fowler: I have received many representations both for and against random testing. Although I believe that reform of drink drive laws is necessary, I do not believe that it is necessary to give police unrestricted powers to test. Random testing does not therefore form part of my proposals. However, there are changes in the law which are important and I shall be introducing the necessary legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that alcohol is a contributory factor in an increasing number of road accidents? What positive proposals will he bring forward to reduce the tendency of motorists to ignore the present laws on drinking and driving?

Mr. Fowler: I could not agree more with the central point that the hon. Gentleman is putting. At the moment, one in three of the drivers killed is over the limit, and that is the kind of problem that we have to tackle. We shall put forward legislation as soon as possible. Part of those proposals will be the introduction of evidential breath testing—breath machines in police stations. We shall improve the legislation, so that people are not acquitted on technicalities. We shall put together a package of pro-

posals that will, I hope, have support on each side of the House.

Mr. lain Mills: Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the legislation that he proposes will be effective in closing any technical loopholes that may exist, particularly with reference to those drivers who have consumed an inordinate amount of alcohol?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. At the moment, over half of those who are convicted are not just a little over the limit; they have consumed almost twice the limit, or more than that. That is the kind of problem with which we are dealing. That is why we want to eliminate the technical defences and to do certain other things. For example, I hope that we shall put forward proposals that will increase the penalties for hit and run, which is connected in many cases with drinking and driving.

Mr. Sheerman: If the Minister believes that road safety is not a matter of party politics, will he ensure that, in Government time, there will be an opportunity to have a free vote on random testing, as I believe that he is to allow the House—ifThe Guardian can be believed—a free vote on seat belts in Government time?

Mr. Fowler: I am not sure of the source from which The Guardian received that story. It is certainly not the intention, although it may well be that there will be a Private Member's Bill in this House, or in another place, on the subject of seat belts. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until he has seen the proposals. If we are successful in finding a place in the legislative programme the Bill will be taken in Committee, and doubtless there will be an opportunity to debate the matter. I am sure that if we debate drinking and driving that kind of issue can and should be properly debated, but my advice to the House is that this is not a power that is necessary, and my fear is that it could endanger the good relations that exist between the police and the public. That is something that we should also have in mind.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is not the biggest technical loophole in the drinking and driving legislation the confidence that most drivers have that they can get drunk and drive, and get away with it? Will the


Minister give us one idea that he has that might reduce the current horrifying figures—which indicate that 4 out of 10 drivers killed are drunk—by even 2 per cent?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. With the breath test machines that we shall be introducing the whole process of testing and checking will be quicker for the police—and, incidentally, for the driver—and will enable the police to check more efficiently than they are able to do at the moment. I ask the hon. Gentleman, before he dismisses those arguments, to await the legislation and the details of it, because I assure him that there is nothing between us on the intent.

Motorway Service Stations

Mr. Major: asked the Minister of Transport how many applications he has received from private developers for the operation of the motorway service stations.

Mr. Fowler: I am glad to say that excellent progress is being made. I have agreed terms, subject to contract, for the sale of half the service areas in England and negotiations are well advanced on the others.

Mr. Major: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. It is very good news. Will he go a little further and advise the House when he expects the negotiations for the sale of the remaining service stations to be completed?

Mr. Fowler: I very much hope that the bulk of the negotiations will be completed in the next few weeks. Once they are completed I shall make a full state-men to the House.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the Minister discourage those who wish to sell alcoholic drinks on motorways? Not only does the consumption of alcohol lead to deaths on the road; it leads to gross ill-behaviour at football matches and so on. Will he encourage only those operators who promise not to sell alcoholic drinks?

Mr. Fowler: No one sells alcohol on the motorways at the moment. We have no intention of changing that position. In other words, it will remain as it is today.

Mr. Michael Brown: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. In the negotiations that are taking place, does he intend to draw attention to the fact that in recent weeks and months an exorbitant charge for petrol has been made at service stations? Will he ensure the House that in the negotiations he will make it clear that he expects to see the same healthy element of competition on petrol sales at service stations as on the consumption of food?

Mr. Fowler: That is one of the purposes of what we are seeking to do. We believe that as a result of this policy there will be much greater competition between motorway service areas. There will certainly be competition in price on petrol. I think that we shall see signs of that very shortly. Increased competition is a much better way of achieving better standards than the catering inspections that the previous Labour Government had in mind.

Mr. Crowther: Further to what the Minister said to his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), does he believe that this exploitation of motorists can be stopped only by positive price control over petrol?

Mr. Fowler: No. That was the last and totally discredited policy of the Labour Government. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait a few months and then see what the situation is. I think that the best way forward is by competition. I believe that he will find that his words ring fairly hollow in a few months' time.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Transport if he is now able to make a further statement about the Channel tunnel project.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The British and French railways' project and a number of other schemes are still being developed. We hope to receive substantive proposals, including financing details, by the end of the year.

Mr. Whitehead: I realise that the Minister cannot anticipate that matter. However, will he confirm that the scheme under active consideration is the single track British Rail-SNCF scheme, not the ludicrous Brunnel which various powerful


private interests are putting forward, which will be many times more expensive?

Mr. Clarke: The British Rail-SNCF scheme is only one of several being investigated. We have invited people to come forward with propositions. There are several active consortia in this area. We are waiting for all of them to work out their proposals and to come to us with them, together with suggestions for their financing.

Mr. John Wells: Will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that any political risk that arises from the construction of the tunnel will be underwritten by the Government? Whereas commercial interests are well capable of underwriting commercial risk, there is always the political uncertainty. May we have an assurance on that point?

Mr. Clarke: I could not put the distinction more clearly than has my hon. Friend. That is precisely the position. If the Government, for political reasons, midway through the scheme were to cancel it, there would be some obligation on them to make good the financial loss; but in our opinion the commercial risk should be taken by those financing the project. There is no way in which the Government will put risk capital into any project of any kind.

Motor Cyclists (Road Safety)

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his examination of the problems experienced by motor cyclists and road safety.

Mr Lee: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his examination of measures designed to improve safety for motor cyclists.

Mr. Fowler: Casualties among motor cyclists are a cause of wide public concern and I believe that measures to improve safety are essential. The most urgent need is to improve the safety of the young and inexperienced rider. I will be proposing three main measures: a reduction in the maximum size of the learner machine; the introduction of a two-part test for learners; and a limitation on the duration of the provisional entitlement to ride a motor cycle. I

hope to introduce legislation on this at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Carlisle: I agree that this is a vital and urgent matter. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the present standard of training that is available for motor cyclists and the thoroughness of the motor cycle driving test?

Mr. Fowler: I am satisfied with the standards, although we shall review them. The real problem is not so much the provision of training facilities; it is that young riders are not taking advantage of the training facilities that exist. About 85 per cent. of those going on to the road for the first time as riders are not undergoing training. That is a totally unsatisfactory situation, and that is what we are aiming to improve.

Mr. Lee: Has my right hon. Friend made any estimate of the number of lives, particularly young lives, that could be saved if and when these measures come into force?

Mr. Fowler: The casualty rate has gone up from 43,000 in 1972, to 67,000 in 1979. At the moment 1,100 motor cyclists are killed each year, and about half of those are teenagers. That is the size of the problem, and that is why it is urgent to act.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister say why he has not taken question 31, standing in my name, with questions 19 and 29? Does he feel any sense of obligation to local authorities such as the South Yorkshire county council, which is seeking to pursue motor cycle safety and which, if it is to maintain that attitude, will need a great deal more Government support than appears to be threatened now? Does he agree that it is urgent to take action to amend the regulations to reflect the reality that motor cycles today are 30 miles an hour faster than vehicles of equivalent size 20 years ago?

Mr. Fowler: I apologise for the first omission, but the hon. Gentleman has got his supplementary in.
Generally—and I shall look at the position in South Yorkshire—there is no problem about training facilities. The training facilities are there—[Interruption.] We should not argue about this matter. The training facilities are there.
The problem is to persuade young motor cyclists to take advantage of them.
I accept that the power of the machines is too high. That is why we propose to bring down by about half the power of the machines that learners can ride.

Mr. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department should be congratulated on the excellent and effective television advertising "Think Bike" campaign? Will he consider extending that to a "Think Car" campaign for motor cyclists, who cut in at traffic lights and put their feet under the front wheels of motor cars?

Mr. Fowler: I shall consider that suggestion. The first part of my right hon. Friend's question is important. One reason why the casualty rate is so high stems from the inherent difficulties of motor cyclists and the fact that many car drivers do not notice them. That has been the purpose of our advertising campaign, and that campaign will continue.

Mr. Booth: Will the changes that the Minister proposes to make in motor cycle licensing and testing require primary legislation? If not, will he assure us that we shall have ample opportunity to debate them in the House? If the House and the Minister are convinced, as I am, that it is wise to have different categories of motor cycle licence, will he seek to persuade his fellow Transport Ministers in the Community that Community licensing of motor bikes, as reflected in the directive, might be changed to take account of this factor?

Mr. Fowler: The short answer is that it will be in the main transport legislation. Therefore, right hon. and hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate it not only on the Floor of the House but in Committee. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman will have the time that he took on the previous Bill to put his points.

British Railways

Mr. Cryer: asked the Minister of Transport when next he intends to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss investment.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the Chairman of British Railways at which matters of policy and investment are discussed. He is meeting the chairman again in two weeks.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the reality that British Rail needs a great deal of investment to refurbish passenger and other rolling stock and railway equipment, that it is so short of cash that it is seeking to reduce the 11,000-mile passenger network and that already the Woodhead route is under scrutiny for closure? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that he will in no way insist to British Rail that investment must be reduced to increase productivity if safety standards will thereby be reduced?

Mr. Clarke: We have not reduced British Rail's investment ceiling. The investment ceiling must be related to the ability of the railway business to afford and make a contribution to it, and of the Government and the country to afford it.
As regards the closure of the Wood-head tunnel, the railway business will be in a better position to make a contribution to its own investment needs if it improves the financial performance of its business. A firm proposal has already been made to save £2½ million on operating costs, without any loss of traffic, and that seems to me to be very well founded.

Mr. Forman: I recognise the Government's efforts to defend British Rail's capital programme, but when my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he urge him to give a higher priority in future capital investment to the needs of short-haul commuters, especially in London and the South-East, as these have been somewhat neglected in the interests of long-haul passengers?

Mr. Clarke: We have been looking at the problem in the light of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That report showed that about 23 per cent. of British Rail's capital programmes were being devoted to commuter services over the period 1970 to 1979. I hope that something of that level will be maintained.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Manpower

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the number of non-industrial and industrial civil servants; and how these figures compare with mid-1979.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what are the latest totals of industrial and non-industrial civil servants employed by Her Majesty's Government.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Paul Channon): On 1 October 1980, there were 543,200 non-industrial and 153,900 industrial staff in post, a reduction of 17,000 and 9,600 respectively compared with 1 July 1979.

Mr. Chapman: Are those reductions in line with the planned reductions announced in the Prime Minister's statement in the summer? Given the annual turnover in the Civil Service, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the planned reduction overall, to 630,000 by 1983–84, can be achieved without any redundancies?

Mr. Channon: These figures are in line with the statement in May of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It remains the Government's firm aim to achieve the figures by April 1984. I cannot say that there will be no redundancies. We are certainly not looking for compulsory redundancies and I hope that there will be very few.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware of the impact which these policies are having on the morale of the Civil Service? In the light of the present low morale there, how can he justify the strict pay policy which is being introduced for the Government's own employees, with the suspension of the Pay Research Unit, and in the light of the fact that there is no pay policy from the Government for any other sector throughout the country?

Mr. Channon: This question relates to manpower. It has nothing to do with pay. But, in view of what the hon. Gentleman says, I should have thought that it was common ground, certainly

among large sections in the House, that in the national interest it was obviously wise that in the public sector we should try to have settlements as low as possible.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reductions made so far in the Civil Service do not seem to be in extent anything like the redundancies in the private manufacturing sector? Is not this serious imbalance a very great drawback in the nation's recovery?'

Mr. Channon: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that our aim to get the Civil Service down to the lowest figures for 40 years by April 1984 represents quite a reasonable achievement. I hope that he will think that it is sensible for the Government to aim to do that in the next two or three years.

Mr. Eastham: Does the Minister recognise that, in view of the Government's current policies and with ever-increasing unemployment, 586,000 additional people on the dole will entail extra work and responsibilities for civil servants? Are not the Government contributing towards that problem?

Mr. Channon: Of course there will be extra work for civil servants if unemployment remains at a high level, but I have taken that fully into account in announcing the figures for the size of the Civil Service.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how the number of civil servants compares with that on 3 May 1979; how many Civil Service jobs have been turned over to the private sector; and at what cost.

Mr. Channon: On 1 April 1979, the nearest date for which figures are available, there were 732,300 civil servants as compared with 697,100 on 1 October 1980. Very few Civil Service jobs have been transferred to the private sector in this period.

Mr. Marlow: For those civil servants who remain in post, will my right hon. Friend introduce a pay policy similar to that which is being put forward by Rolls Royce—a nil norm, plus increases related only to productivity? Will he scotch, once and for all, the figures going around of 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. at a time when people in manufacturing industry,


which produces the wealth that pays for the Civil Service, are taking wage settlements far below those figures?

Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. My right and noble Friend the Lord President made it clear as long ago as August that next year the cash limit would be the major determinant of Civil Service pay. I shall certainly bear what my hon. Friend says in mind. So far, no cash limit has been set.

Mr. English: Since the definition of "civil servant" is so artificial, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could give us the number of Crown servants and servants of Crown corporations, excluding those in the market sector. The figure should be something approaching 2 million.

Mr. Channon: I am afraid that I could not do that without notice. What I think the House is interested in is to see the figures on a like-with-like basis over the months, so that it can compare what is being achieved and what is not being achieved.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have completely abandoned the principle of comparability in pay awards in the public sector? If that is so, does he agree that it will have the effect of making the private sector more attractive and thus ultimately reducing the number of civil servants?

Mr. Channon: I can speak only for the Civil Service, and not for the whole public sector. What the Government have done is to suspend pay research for 1981. No decisions have been taken about later years. We are discussing at present improvements to the pay research system with the Council of Civil Service Unions. Decisions will be arrived at in due course. However, I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Straw: Is it not a fact that, on the question of numbers, much of the reduction in Civil Service staff has been offset by an increase, for example, in the number of people employed by get-rich-quick private cleaning contractors? Why has the Minister not produced a proper estimate, in answer to this question, of the number of jobs now being done in the

private sector which were previously done in the public sector?

Mr. Channon: Because the number is so very small. [Interruption.] What I have already promised the Select Committee—and the House can have it if it likes—is that we shall make a quarterly return of those figures. So far, they have been so small that it has not been worth making such a return.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware, however, of the serious allegations being made about the activities of some of these contractors that have been employed by the Government—that they are employing children and that they are evading taxes, and other allegations about the cleaning of Government Departments? Does he agree that it is quite wrong to be declaring cleaners in Government Departments redundant and then bringing in bucket-shop operations to take over those jobs? What will he do to stop it?

Mr. Channon: It is not for me to decide the cleaning arrangements for each Government Department. It is up to each Department to make its own arrangements in the most economical way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] What I am saying is correct. It is for each Government Department to decide; it is not for me to lay down a central rule. If the hon. Member has allegations to make against any firm that is operating in a Government Department, I hope that he will take them up with the Minister responsible.

Permanent Secretaries (Retirement)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many requests he has received since May 1979 from permanent secretaries in the Civil Service who wished to transfer to private industry immediately following their retirement.

Mr. Channon: Since May 1979 the Government have received requests from six permanent secretaries serving in, or recently retired from, the United Kingdom Civil Service to take up outside business appointments. The business appointments rules require a minimum period of three months to elapse between a permanent secretary leaving the Civil Service and taking up an appointment within the scope of the rules.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the Minister confirm or deny that one of these requests came from Sir Jack Rampton, a former permanent secretary at the Department of Industry, who has been reported in the press as being likely to be appointed chairman of a large British company with extensive construction interests in the North Sea? If that is so, would it not be most improper for a civil servant of that seniority to move immediately to such a company?

Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman has tabled his question, I must tell him that the Government have received no such request from Sir Jack Rampton to take up a business appointment. Were any such request to be received, it would have to be considered in accordance with the rules.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister assure the House that any future applications of this sort will be refused if the business appointment concerned is anything to do with the particular matters with which the civil servant was dealing in the Civil Service? Is not any other arrangement unacceptable to the House and the nation?

Mr. Channon: What I think is acceptable are the rules that were laid down by the previous Government in 1975 after a thorough review of the rules that then applied. I think that that deals fully with the hon. Member's point. However, if the House finds that that is not so, the Government will be willing to

accept any advice that the House cares to give.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not strange how the private sector continually criticises civil servants for being on its back but invites senior permanent secretaries and deputy secretaries into its boardrooms? Is it not extraordinary that so many should retire, or retire prematurely, from their Civil Service careers to finish up in a well-paid job in a boardroom? Does that not smack of some degree of corruption? Are not the rules totally inadequate, whether they were produced by this Government or the previous Government?

Mr. Channon: I have no evidence that the rules are inadequate. If the House, or if the Select Committee which has been considering this matter, comes to the view that they are inadequate, the Government will be willing to consider the matter again.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it proper that given the delicate issue of relations between oil companies and Government Departments a period of three months should be thought to be adequate?

Mr. Channon: No. I do not think that that is the case. As I said to the House that is the minimum period for a permanant secretary. The committee may recommend to the Prime Minister any period up to two years. It is for the Prime Minister of the day to decide on applications made by permanent secretaries, and the Prime Minister makes her own decision in all such matters.

THEFT FROM SHOPS

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law on theft by abolishing private prosecutions for theft from shops; requiring investigation of all circumstances before the prosecution of pensioners for this offence; and for other purposes connected therewith.
Those in the House, especially the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and myself, who have been campaigning for change for many years are not concerned to protect the professional thief or shoplifter. We are as concerned as anyone else about thievery from shops. Shoplifting is theft and its price is paid by the ordinary shopper. We are concerned about the prosecution of the innocent and, in certain cases, the prosecution of those who are guilty but ill.
Professional thieves, both individuals and bands, are being watched increasingly. In Leicester a campaign is under way to warn them by visible signs. That is fair enough. What is not fair is the enormous toll of human misery that is incurred by those who are forgetful and innocent. It is time for the House to take to itself the need for an inquiry into how the prevention of the prosecution of innocents can be avoided. It is a difficult issue.
I make certain suggestions that I ask the House at least to approve in principle. First, we should adopt the system that already exists in Scotland, which is that all prosecutions should be by the police and that the sometimes awkward and anguished decision whether to prosecute should be removed from the individual shopkeeper. This is already happening in many areas. The shopkeeper still has the right to decide whether to report a suspected offence to the police. He will exercise that right within his discretion. The police, as guardians of the public and as responsible to the public, should then decide whether or not to prosecute.
Secondly, I commend to the House the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington and his team in the independent study of the cause and effect of the increase in shoplifting, namely, that where reasonably practicable there should be bag parks where people

in self-service stores can put their own bags so that the possibility of forgetfulness is at least reduced. I am sure that there is no one in the House who has not at some time walked out of a restaurant, a store or a petrol station without thinking and without paying or with something with him that he has afterwards taken back, or something that he has taken back without the receipt, running the risk of being accused of shoplifting. A huge pile of letters from suffering correspondents suggests that this is rife.
Thirdly, I suggest that cashiers, those who receive the money from the public, should be required to ask "Have you paid for everything that you have taken?"
We must recognise that there are many who are technically guilty but ill. We all know that apart from professional thieves there are many for whom the offence is a form of suicide. There are those who are mentally ill, those who are suffering and those who need to be treated by a decent and compassionate community with understanding. The worst place for them in the world is the dock. The result of their going there may be truly tragic.
I recommend to the House that it accepts the proposition that if a pensioner is to be charged he or she should at least have an examination beforehand to decide whether or not a prosecution is appropriate. I respectfully disagree with the suggestion made by the study group on shoplifting that the first offence should necessarily result in a caution. I see no reason why a shoplifter should be given one chance, as a dog is given one bite. That would not be right. However, there should be the sort of screening process that Dr. Michael Tarsh called for in The Times last week and which has been written about so much. In any event, there should be an inquiry into this area of law.
One of the great troubles is that professional thieves and professional shoplifters take court proceedings in their stride. They accept them as one of the hazards of their wicked profession. Innocent people often have to wait many months if they choose trial by jury. Innocent people often have nervous breakdowns long before their cases go to trial. That is unfair, and it is wrong. The percentage of acquittals, which is well over


50 per cent., bears tribute to the fact that many who are innocent are charged with the offence. Some hon. Members are laughing. They would not laugh if this happened to them.
This is an issue that should concern all hon. Members. It could happen to us or to members of our families, in a difficult world in which the goods in a self-service store are presented in a way to induce people to buy and to invite them to be forgetful.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Heartbreak Bill!

Mr. Janner: I asked the House, in compassion, decency, justice and in enlightened self-interest, to give me leave to introduce this modest Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. David Knox, Mr. David Mudd, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. John Sever and Mr. Alan Woodall.

Mr. Skinner: There are only four of them here.

THEFT FROM SHOPS

Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law on theft by abolishing private prosecutions for theft from shops; requiring investigation of all circumstances before the prosecution of pensioners for this offence; and for other purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 6 November and to be printed. [Bill 270.]

CIVIL AVIATION [MONEY] (No. 3)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the reduction of the public dividend capital of the British Airways Board and for the subsequent dissolution of the Board and the vesting of all its property, rights, liabilities and obligations in a company nominated by the Secretary of State and to amend the Civil Aviation Act 1971, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums issued out of or paid into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing to £1,000 million the limit on the aggregate of the amount outstanding in respect of the principal of any money borrowed by the British Airways Board (including sums deemed to have been loaned to the Board) and the sums paid to the Board under section 7 of the British Airways Board Act 1977.—[Mr. Boscawend

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION BILL

Lords amendments considered.

New Clause A

Lords amendment: No. 1. in page 2, after clause 1, in line 15, at end insert—

"A. In section 9(1) of the British Airways Board Act 1977 (limit on borrowing powers of the Board) for the words from "shall not" to the end there shall be substituted the words" shall not exceed £1,000 million." ."

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 6. I must inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Tebbit: The amendment is des-signed to increase the board's financial limits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade announced recently that the flotation would not be made of the shares of British Airways next year.
The clause provides for British Airways' statutory borrowing limit to be raised from the present level of £850 million to £1,000 million. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement, on 13 October, to the effect that in view of present difficulties in the civil aviation market it would not be possible to launch a successful flotation of British Airways shares in 1981, it was clear that British Airways would require additional finance in order to see it through the period until the launch.
Although we were disappointed at having to reach such a decision, it was inevitable, given that reduced traffic this year has had an adverse effect on the financial performance of all airlines, including British Airways. Nevertheless, the announcement demonstrates what the Government have often said about the timing of the flotation. We shall not proceed until we consider the time is right, taking into account the interests of all

concerned, particularly those of British Airways.
It remains our intention to proceed as soon as we can.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It was never a runner.

Mr. Tebbit: That remark underlines the hon. Gentleman's long-held lack of faith in British Airways; nothing more. If the hon. Gentleman believes that British Airways are viable he must believe that it is possible to launch it on to the market.

Mr. Kerr: The Minister has got it wrong. I am concerned about the way in which the Government are messing up an otherwise efficiently run airline. In Committee we warned the Minister and his colleagues that this would happen. I very much regret that such things have come to pass. It is a sad day for me, because the Minister has fallen flat on his face.

Mr. Tebbit: Although the hon. Gentleman has used a lot of words he has not said anything. If he believes that British Airways are a viable, well-run airline, he must believe that they could stand on their own feet as a private sector company. If he does not believe that private investors could be persuaded to put their money into the airline, he must ask himself whether any public investor could be so persuaded.
Until the launch, British Airways will remain a nationalised industry and will have to continue to fund their investment programme, particularly the modernisation of their aircraft fleet. That programme is essential, but it cannot be met from British Airways' internal funds alone. It will require further external borrowings. The new clause increases the airline's statutory borrowing limit to permit those borrowings. The increase does not represent any addition to forecast public expenditure, because the airline's future borrowing requirements have already been taken into account in the forecasts. Essentially, the new clause provides British Airways with financial stability, so that the fleet replacement programme can continue. I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Smith: The Minister's tone was quieter than normal. That is appropriate, because he


has had to eat some humble pie. The Government wish to increase British Airway's borrowing powers, because they have reluctantly had to announce that they will be unable to float the shares in 1981. In addition, I suspect that the Minister will find that he cannot float them after that date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) and I, as well as many other hon. Members, repeatedly told the Minister what would happen during the many hours spent in Commit. tee. Time after time the Government insisted that they would put the shares on the market, although they would not be pinned down to a precise date. What are the consequences of the Minister's action for the public sector borrowing requirement? The Government said that selling the shares would lead to a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me say that the increase does not represent any addition to forecast public expenditure, because the airline's future borrowing requirement was included in that forecast.

Mr. Smith: I heard that, but I doubt whether that is the whole story. If there had been a successful flotation of the shares the Government would probably have claimed that they had achieved a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement. However, that is another matter. One must watch what the Under-Secretary says and study the fine print carefully when he tries to sell something to the House.
It is important to ask why it was necessary to introduce the Bill. The Government were in a hurry to get part I through the House in this Session, so that they could sell the shares. The parliamentary timetable has been overloaded. The Government have had longer than normal to deal with this issue. They have been in office almost one and a half years, because of the date of the last election. Last year the Bill was one of the first runners, yet we are still debating it at the tail-end of the Session. As it turns out, we did not need it.
Part II deals with civil aviation licensing, but the Government have departed

so far from the policy that they announced that it is hardly necessary They said that they would interfere less with the Civil Aviation Authority, but they have done nothing but interfere with it. The Bill appeared important but, not for the first time in our legislative process, it has turned out to be unimportant. It is a topsy-turvy operation.
The Government should not tease us each year. We do not want them to say, this time next year, that as a result of the circumstances surrounding the aviation industry they are forced to announce that they cannot float the shares in 1982. Nor should they come along at the end of 1982 to make a similar statement for 1983. It is better to bite the bullet now. They should consider the long-term viability of British Airways and that company's future security. They should decide that British Airways do not provide a suitable vehicle for such an ideological experiment. That would help British Airways and all those who work for that company.
I am not a student of the Government's tactics, and I do not know whether this move represents a U-turn. The Government will probably say that it is not a U-turn and that they are parking in a layby. At a suitable time, they may say that they are ready to emerge from the layby and get back on the road that leads to selling shares. I do not think that that will happen. The Government are on a slip road leading off the road. I hope that they will carry on along that slip road, although they may stop for a little while in the layby for the convenience of the party's morale. They should move confidently out of the layby and on to the slip road. They should not return to the main road.
I shall not taunt the Government about making a U-turn, because it is in the national interest for them to do so. If it makes it easier for the Government to adopt this course without ribbing from the Opposition, I am prepared to forgo some political advantage in the general interests of British Airways and our aviation industry. This is a significant moment. It is an interesting example of a Government who have had to face reality. In the difficult circumstances of international civil aviation there is no reason to believe that British Airway's position will be any better a year from


now. Most private sector airlines, particularly those in the United States of America, find themselves in difficult circumstances. We all understand the reasons. They include depressed demand in the world economy, increased fuel charges, and all those other factors that make international aviation a difficult business.
We shall not oppose the amendment. The Government have made a wise move. Perhaps they could have made a more open declaration of their change of policy, but I hope that they will not linger in the layby for too long. I hope that they will move confidently into the slip road and that the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am anxious not to detain the House or the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith), who I know has a pressing engagement later today, but I do not think that we should let him get away with that superficial speech. The Government have made a sensible decision and it does not represent a U-turn in any sense. I know that Labour Members are anxious to represent it as such at all costs, but in fact the position is quite clear—the Government remain committed to proceed with the sale of assets of British Airways, in part at least, and will do so at the right and propitious moment. The "right moment" was something that Labour Members called for in Committee, so their support for this amendment should not come as a surprise.
None of us will be surprised to hear that this is not the best moment for selling shares in this industry because there are great problems that the industry must overcome. When the right hon. Gentleman said that British Airways have no solution to its problems or when he implied that, as he most clearly did, he—

Mr. John Smith: I did not.

Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Member did, because he said that British Airways shares would never be marketable.

Mr. Smith: That is idiotic. I did not say that.

Mr. Onslow: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make idiotic statements,

perhaps he will do the House the courtesy of getting to his feet.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member is such an expert on idiotic statements that I cannot rival him, but he must be reminded of our opposition throughout the Committee stage—I suppose that he listened to the debates from time to time—when we said that it was not impossible but completely unwise to sell shares.

Mr. Onslow: I can claim to be an expert on idiotic statements, having listened at length to the right hon. Gentleman in Committee. That was an education in itself. Although he is boxing the compass now, he made it perfectly clear in Committee that his opposition to this measure was not on grounds of saleability but on a doctrinaire basis. That will not surprise anyone. The right hon. Gentleman should know that British Airways and other airlines throughout the world are taking steps to increase viability and slim down costs in order to put themselves in a position where they can offer a decent return to investors. The sooner that time comes the better all of us will be pleased—except the right hon. Gentleman, of course. We look forward to that day even if he does not.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that there are ways in which he may be able to bring forward the date on which British Airways become a floatable company. There are areas in which the Government might be able to increase efficiency—in air traffic control, or in other areas—by relieving the airlines operating through Heathrow of some of the burdens of charges on the ground, particularly the security charges. I am glad that I appear to carry the right hon Member for Lanarkshire, North with me on that point at least. We now have a bit more time available in which British Airways can slim down and capitalise on the programme that they have been running for some time to reduce overmanning and equip themselves with the kind of fleet that they need. The airline can increase their efficiency and punctuality and improve their service to the public.
None of this is bad and none of it represents "sitting in a lay-by", as the right hon. Gentleman said. It represents a sensible recognition of reality. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that if he were not sitting on


the Opposition Front Bench. There is no reason why the House should regard this as anything other than a sensible measure. We look forward to my hon. Friend coming to the Dispatch Box early in the next Session but one and announcing that the sale will go ahead. I am sure that when he does so the staff and employees of British Airways particularly, who know first-hand what they have done to make the company more efficient and more marketable, will be correspondingly eager to take up the shares when the time comes.
In that spirit I commend this Lords amendment to the House.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: I address my remarks to the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement of the failure to go ahead with the sale of shares. I hope to draw the Minister out a little more on this question.
The reason given for the haste in proceeding with the Bill at all in the lifetime of this Parliament was, in part, the contribution that it would make to offsetting the PSBR. I think that that is fair comment. This Bill was not presaged in the pre-election period. It was not in the manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party. It appeared very rapidly after the election and it appeared to have this motivation, along with the ideological wish of the Conservatives to privatise. Hon. Members will remember the word "privatisation", which began to creep round in Committee. The Minister shakes his head, not in disagreement but in horror of that word. We share a horror, not of the word but of the reasoning and the thinking behind it.
Having sat month after month in Committee and through various stages in both Houses, we are now told at the last gasp that the proposal will not go ahead at all in the foreseeable future. Perhaps the Government hope that it will happen some time, but I suspect that the Minister will not tell me when it will be.

Mr. Tebbit: I think that it is worth making two points. First, the hon. Member has omitted one reason for the denationalisation of British Airways—in fact, the prime reason. Denationalisation will be good for British Airways; it is a better way to run an airline. Secondly, the hon.
Member says that the launch will not be in the foreseeable future. Certainly it will be in the foreseeable future, but, in the words of the Leader of the House most weeks, "Not next year, sir".

Mr. Woolmer: The Minister is attempting to avoid the obvious charge that there has been a complete misjudgment by the Government about the state of the economy and the business that they were proposing to privatise or denationalise. The outcome of all this has been months of uncertainty. British Airways have had considerable difficulty, and at the end of the day there has been no indication of any time scale for the proposal.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) says that this is a sensible decision and that it does not represent a U-turn. There are many people in this country who see a sensible decision by the Government and a U-turn as being one and the same thing. I do not see any contradiction in terms in saying that this U-turn is a sensible decision and I believe that that would reflect the attitude of most people about present Government policies. It is not the time to sell shares in British Airways or in any company in the United Kingdom. The state of profitability is so bad that it is not the time to sell any shares at all.
I hope that the Minister will be much clearer and firmer about his intentions on flotation. Will he give us an assurance that the Government will not push ahead with flotation until the time is right and the circumstances allow it? Of course we would say that they should not do so at all.
Secondly, can the Minister indicate the consequences of the failure to carry the flotation through in the time scale that was envisaged when the Bill got off the ground? What will be the consequences for the loss of revenue or the loss of the reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement that the Government hoped for originally?

4 pm

Mr. Michael Colvin: I support this amendment. I am very pleased to see the Civil Aviation Bill entering the legislative home straight at last. I welcome the Government's pragmatic approach to the flotation of shares in British Airways, just as I welcome the


indication of pragmatic Socialism from the Labour Front Bench. It is time that we saw more of that. I appreciate that the delay in the flotation of shares has been instrumental in the need for this amendment. It is one of the reasons for it.
Can my hon. Friend tell us a little more about guarantees to British Airways? The continuance of guarantees was raised in another place but was not adequately answered. Because of public sector borrowing requirement considerations, I appreciate that when British Airways become a private company the Government will no longer give loan guarantees. At the moment they do, which enables British Airways to go into the market in the United States of America, where they raise most of their money to buy aircraft and to get favourable terms. Once privatised, will those existing loan guarantees continue? That is an important consideration in the preparation of the prospects for the sale of shares in the company.
Secondly, I wish to ask about the route structure of British Airways. The most valuable asset of any airline is its route structure. British Airways' route network domestically, in Europe and internationally, long and short haul, is one of its prime assets. Can my hon. Friend undertake that he and his right hon. Friend, should they ever be tempted to use the judgment of Solomon once more with regard to the allocation of routes, will bear in mind that British Airways' route structure is fundamental to the preparation of a good prospectus for the sale of shares?
I and several of my hon. Friends had the pleasure last night of meeting senior executives of British Airways and discussing their forecast for the future of the company and civil aviation generally. We appreciate that civil aviation internationally is very much in the doldrums. The market is very difficult indeed. We applaud the efforts of Mr. Ross Stainton and Mr. Roy Watts, who lead British Airways, the senior executives and all members of the company at all levels to increase productivity within the corporation and bring it back into profit. When the time comes to float the shares, I am sure that the flotation will be extremely successful.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The Under-Secretary's speech is the second concession speech that we have heard in 12 hours. While humility has never previously been the hon. Gentleman's forte, on this occasion he has obviously decided that if humble pie has to be eaten the best way to eat it is to bolt it whole, although he did exhibit shades of schizophrenia when interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr).
What the Minister said today and what was said in another place underline all the points regarding part I of the Bill that we have made from the moment, more than 15 months ago, when it was introduced. The Bill is a massive irrelevance, even from the starting point of the Government's philosophy. However, the Government have chosen to conduct the Bill over many hours of debate with, as we now see it, a vigorous inconsequence. Our stand has been wholly vindicated.
Apart from our objections in principle to the proposed raid on public assets, we said, time and time again, that flotation in 1981 would be absurd. That argument is now conceded, because of the continuing fuel crisis, the heavy investment programme that has to be undertaken, and so on. There is no evidence to suggest that against the background of the international aviation scene the flotation could be viable in 1982, even accepting the Minister's criteria. It is unlikely to be successful in the foreseeable future. It is no good the Minister saying that the Opposition do not want British Airways to succeed. That is not true. The reality is what will happen internationally. There is no silver lining to the aviation cloud at present and it is unlikely to appear.
Of course we object to such a doctrinaire proposal in principle, but, even looking at the matter pragmatically from the Government's point of view, there is little likelihood because of the present situation—and that has nothing to do with the viability of British Airways or the way that they are conducting themselves—that that proven track record of success, which is an essential element in a successful flotation, will be available. I stress that that is not the fault of British Airways, as was conceded by the


Government spokesman, the noble Lord Trefgarne, in another place on 16 October. He pointed out that in 1979:
British Airways', own fuel bill rose 72 per cent… . but they still managed to make a profit, more than could be said for many of their competitors. More recently, the general economic downturn has reduced airline traffic throughout the world and this has inevitably hit operators' profits, again throughout the industry worldwide."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 1495.]
Those are the facts. We are not attacking British Airways or the steps that they are taking, or the dedication of their work force to make the airline a success. I hope that the Minister will not continue to raise that bogus point. British Airways, on the Government's admission, have done rather better than most of their competitors under public ownership.
All the facts were obvious to everyone except the Ministers in the Department of Trade 15 months ago. When one considers the statement made in another place on 13 October 1980 one becomes aware of the extraordinary chronology of events in this saga of incompetence. On Friday 20 July 1979 the Government rushed out a statement. Friday is an odd day for such a statement. They refused to consult anyone about the principle of the proposals before that statement was made. In contrast, the Bill has had a leisurely progress through the House. It was not until 13 October 1980 that any evidence was exhibited that the Government were showing the slightest willingness to embrace reality. All the facts were known long ago. Why did it take the Government so long to wake up?
In the other place on 13 October Lord Trefgarne apparently failed to digest, or was not given sufficient time to digest, the implications of his statement. He said that the transfer of British Airways' assets would be made to a nominee company under the terms of the Bill. Hastily, doubtless after one of the hurriedly scribbled notes that occasionally arrive for Ministers from civil servants in the box, he had to retract that piece of misinformation. As late as 13 October, therefore, the noble Lord did not know his own case.
One of our major criticisms of the Government has been their determination

to plough ahead with their doctrinaire proposals, regardless of the views of others who they could have consulted but refused to do so. I am sure that all the debates on that point will be vividly recalled by the Minister. In response, the Minister treated us to a novel series of constitutional objections to show why consultation was not only inappropriate but improper. Putting it politely, yet using the letter "B", it was a supreme example of bogus Bagehot.
This great custodian of parliamentary liberties and proprieties was not only proposing to neuter virtually every possibility of parliamentary surveillance of British Airways while they remain a substantial public stake—and this applies also to the other proposals in the remainder of the Bill; the indictment is much worse. The Government have been prepared not simply to sidetrack the management and the trade unions that could have acquainted them with some of the facts of life—the birds and bees of the aviation industry—but to sidetrack Parliament. The other place was sitting early in October, but the Government chose to make to the press a public announcement of their decision on the matter that we are considering. If it had not been for the vigilance of the Opposition in another place, the statement would not have been made in Parliament until three days later, when the Committee stage of the Bill was due to be reached. That point was conceded by Lord Denham, who said:
I have done my best to find out exactly what would have happened if another place had been sitting at this moment and in what way the Statement would have been made. I can tell the House that the best I have been able to find out at the moment is that the Statement would have been made in the same way, as a press statement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 868.]
The noble Lord was conceding that this House would have been shown the same disrespect as was shown to another place. The Government's action was offensive and arrogant, and showed little regard for the constitutional proprieties of which the Under-Secretary claims to be the custodian.
In the face of reality, the Under-Secretary should announce that he is prepared to abandon the hair-brained proposals in part I. We shall be delighted if he will establish that he is a failed kamikaze pilot. To go on with the threat


over the head of British Airways is to continue to undermine stability in the airline and the confidence of the work force. Let British Airways get on with the task of competing effectively in a difficult aviation climate. Part I represents a gratuitous distraction, and it should be removed.

Mr. Tebbit: By leave of the House, it may be helpful if I answer one or two of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) wanted me to reassure him that we would not attempt to launch shares at a time when it would be damaging to the corporation. I gave that assurance a number of times during the earlier stages of the passage of the Bill through the House and I am happy to give it again. Since the prime objective of denationalisation is to benefit British Airways, we would not carry it through in a way that would damage the corporation. That would not be the way to persuade anyone to invest.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the implications for the public sector borrowing requirement. I cannot put into figures what benefit might have come from the sale. It is not possible to say how much would be realised by the sale. That depends on a great deal that we cannot know—the state of the airline industry, the state of the stock market, and so on. Since the external financing limits for British Airways for the coming year have not yet been announced, it would be wrong for me to give an indication of that side of the equation, either.
All that I can say is that the PSBR would have been that much smaller, or we would have had more to spend on other things—perhaps social programmes, which are near to the heart of the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith). It is certain that the money cannot he spent in two places at the same time. If it has to be spent on financing aircraft for British Airways it will not be available for other programmes. Certainly there would have been a benefit.

Mr. Woolmer: Why does the Under-Secretary continue to be so coy about the amount that he would hope to raise from the sale of British Airways? Does he not owe it to the country to tell us how much he expects to raise, at least within a broad range, from selling what, on his own ad-

mission, will be a profitable national asset?

Mr. Tebbit: I do not know what the state of the stock market will be, or how profitable the airline will be. I do not know what other opportunities there will be for investors to invest in alternative propositions. It is impossible to give a figure. The hon. Gentleman can read the accounts and make his own estimate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) asked about the guarantee of loans. The position is clear and there should be no confusion. Loans drawn down before British Airways is converted will be subject to guarantee. After that, borrowings made by the corporation will not be subject to guarantee. Of course, the guarantee will continue for loans before the changeover.
My hon. Friend also referred to route rights. No one can guarantee that a route will be given to an airline for all time, but we have made it clear that we would not expect the Civil Aviation Authority to go in for arbitrary reallocation of routes, and there is no sign that it intends to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked for some comfort on the question of costs for British Airways from external causes. As the House knows, I am inhibited in what I can say about that, at least in one area, but I assure my hon. Friend that, at least in the case of the security levy, I hope that I shall have quite good news before too long.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) made his usual speech. I suppose that we all make our usual speeches, but I assure him that in my view British Airways are not a lame duck. They may have lost a feather or two during the recession, like most other airlines, but we are confident that they are in good flying shape and that they will be in sufficiently good shape to be denationalised and attract private sector support.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Gentleman will concede that British Airways is in good flying shape under public ownership, which demonstrates that there is not much reason to change the situation. He constantly suggests that we are seeking to denigrate the activities of the corporation in order to subvert his scheme.
The contrary is true. We believe that British Airways are a viable, successful concern, which could be more successful if the Government withdrew their wretched Bill.

Mr. Tebbit: In saying that he believes that British Airways are a viable and successful concern, the hon. Gentleman underlines our belief that public sector investors will come forward to buy shares in it.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that no disrepect was meant to either House in the way that the announcement was made by my right hon. Friend. We had never announced a date on which a sale of shares would take place and we merely confirmed that it would not be during 1981.

Mr. Davis: Would it not have been better if the Government had gone to another place, which was sitting, and made the statement there, as they were required to do? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the first time that the Government have behaved disrespectfully to another place? They had to apologise not only on this occasion but on another.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that if I were in the hon. Gentleman's position I should be looking for some reason to say that the Government had been disrespectful to this House or to another place. However, that is not the case. The statement was singularly unexciting, and was properly dealt with by my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 10

SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWERS OVER BRITISH AIR TRANSPORT BUSINESSES IN CASE OF EMERGENCY

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 10 line 40, leave out "28 of the Criminal

Law Act 1977 "and insert" 32 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980."

Mr. Tebbit: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

Mr. Tebbit: These amendments are even less controversial than those that we have just discussed. I do not think that there can be any disagreement about these matters. These four amendments are consequential on the passing of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. We could not take account of that Act when the Bill was discussed earlier in the House. Now we can. The Magistrates' Courts Act is a consolidation measure which, when it comes into force on a day to be specified, will replace those parts of the Criminal Law Act 1977 which are specified in the penalty provisions of clause 10 of the Civil Aviation Bill.
The first three of the four amendments remove the references in the clause to the Criminal Law Act 1977 and substitute references to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The fourth amendment is a transitional provision, which will preserve the application of the 1977 Act until the 1980 Act enters into force.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the Minister able to indicate, as a matter of information, when the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 will come into force?

Mr. Tebbit: No. I regret that I am not informed. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman asks one of my colleagues in the Home Department the answer will be provided.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5 agreed to.

TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Shortly before the recess the Government agreed to amend what is now the Housing Act 1980 to allow an additional category of specially adapted houses for the elderly in England to be excluded from the right to buy. At the same time, an undertaking was given to bring forward amending legislation introducing into the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 an amendment "to give similar effect" to the arrangements embodied in the Housing Act. This undertaking is met by the Bill which is now before the House. It has already been considered in another place and has emerged with its provisions approved and unchanged apart from a slightly narrower specification of what is meant by the term "elderly" in connection with amenity housing.
In describing the aim and effect of the one provision of substance in this Bill on the sale of elderly persons' housing, there are two points on which I intend to concentrate my remarks. The first concerns the drafting of the amending provision. The drafting of the Tenant's Rights, Etc. (Scotland) and the Housing Acts differs considerably in many respects and it would not have been appropriate simply to transpose the Housing Act provision into the tenants' rights Act. The Scottish Act already recognises two distinct categories of housing which are specially adapted for the elderly.
Those houses which are fully sheltered, in the sense of having a call system and a resident warden, are wholly excluded from the right to buy by section 1(11)(c) of the Act. In relation to the different category of houses which have substantial adaptations but where there is neither a call system nor a warden, there is provision in section 4(4) for the local authority to exercise a right of pre-emption once the house has been sold to the first tenant purchaser should he subsequently

decide to sell. Introducing a third definition of a category of houses for the elderly would have been bound to cause confusion.
Consequently, the central definition of the category of houses which it is proposed should be able to be excluded from the right to buy as a result of this Bill is founded upon the form of words which already appears in section 4(4) of the Tenants' Rights Act and which has the advantage of having been discussed in detail by both Houses and found satisfactory as a description of houses in which the community has a right to retain an interest.
What the Bill does is to give local authorities a choice as regards that category of houses between the existing power to attach pre-emption conditions if they wish to sell and the new possibility introduced by the Bill, that is, seeking the authorisation of the Secretary of State for excluding the houses from the right to buy altogether.
There are a number of other reasons why the drafting of the Scottish provision must necessarily differ from the drafting of the Housing Act provision. The Housing Act has no equivalent of the provision in the Tenants' Rights Act which places time limits on the action to be taken by a landlord following an application to purchase, and it is clearly necessary that a drafting approach should be adopted which makes sense of the new provision within that framework. However, in its essential form, the procedure proposed in clause 1 of the Bill is directly modelled on the procedure now embodied in the Housing Act. If an authority believes that the houses in question are within the category that is defined in the new section 3A, which is being inserted into the pricipal Act, it may apply to the Secretary of State for his authorisation to refuse to sell the houses, and he must give that authorisation if the criteria set out in the subsection (1) of the new section 3A are met.
My second main point concerns the effect of the new provision. The main category of houses affected by it would be those known as amenity houses, that is, houses which are physically in all respects like fully sheltered houses but which lack the call system and the


resident warden. This is a distinct and clearly understood category of housing for the elderly, introduced by the previous Government in 1975, on which detailed design guidance is included in the recently revised part 5 of the Scottish housing handbook. A number of other houses which have been adapted on an ad hoc basis for the elderly will also be likely to fall within the definition of affected housing given in the Bill.
The Bill approximately doubles the number of specially adapted houses for the elderly which are likely to be excluded from the right to buy. What the Government have done is to provide a sales approach which is both right for Scotland and consistent with what has been done in England and Wales, where the number of possible exclusions was also doubled by a similar change to the Housing Act. At the same time, we have kept in mind the wishes of many elderly people to own their own homes, and the Bill is designed to ensure that their right to buy is taken from them only if the community has an overriding interest in the continued availability of houses which are genuinely different from the general run of houses.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I accept that this is a narrow Bill concerning the elderly, but will the Minister say how he will cater for the elderly on the Brucefield Estate, Dunfermline, where the houses have been sold over the heads of the people on the estate in terms and circumstances that enabled James Miller and Partners, theoretically, to make £1 million profit by sitting on their backsides?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that these houses, which are not the responsibility of the Scottish Office, were offered for sale. The company to which the hon. Gentleman referred put in an offer that was by far the highest amount. In regard to those tenants who wish to buy the houses, I understand that James Miller has indicated no objection to offering the houses to the individual tenants who wish to purchase. I hope that this meets the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Clause 2 makes a number of minor amendments which come somewhere in

the area between the concern of the draftsman and the concern of the printer. The only one about which I wish to say something is clause 2(f)—the amendment which clarifies the interpretation of the term "heritable proprietor".
Section 1(11) of the Act provides, in part, that the right to buy does not exist where a landlord does not own the house in question. This is a commonsense provision. However, the provision uses the term "heritable proprietor" to denote ownership and it has been suggested by one or two local authorities that a technical quibble about Scots conveyancing terminology could give rise to some doubt about whether "heritable proprietor" covers all forms of ownership. The Government are confident that the Act as it stands is perfectly sound, and I understand that a number of local authorities have taken independent legal advice which has confirmed this view.
What the doubtful authorities seem to be saying is that local authorities which took over houses on the reorganisation of local government and did not formally complete their title to those houses could not be regarded as owners, and therefore their tenants do not have the statutory right to purchase. This view is untenable, and I repeat that the Government are entirely satisfied that the Act as it stands is not defective in any way. Our understanding has, I gather, recently been amply confirmed by advice given to one Labour authority by Professor Halliday, one of Scotland's foremost authorities on conveyancing law. It has, however, become clear in recent weeks that one or two Scottish authorities are intent on exploiting any shred of doubt as they see it about the interpretation of the term "heritable proprietor" in order to delay the processing of applications and to discourage tenants from exercising their right to buy.
Clearly, it is desirable that there should be no vestige of doubt or claimed doubt about a provision of such importance, affecting the right to buy of the majority of Scotland's public sector tenants, and this amendment is brought forward to provide the necessary clarification. With the amendment proposed, there can be no remaining doubt that we shall have an Act which does what Parliament always intended it to do.
With those remarks, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Bruce Milian: We shall support the Bill because its main provision is a concession to the main Act—the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act. The Bill is modest, and does not go far enough. I shall not go over the arguments that were expressed during the passage of the principal Bill, which was debated at considerable length, but I wish to put on record that the Labour Party is vehemently opposed to the compulsory sale of council houses against the wishes of local authorities in circumstances that are damaging to existing local authority tenants who wish to be transferred and to applicants on the housing lists. We believe that the Act is wholly repugnant in that respect. Of course, the next Labour Government will repeal the legislation.
Our short experience of the Act has demonstrated that the interest in buying houses is preponderantly, but not exclusively, in the best areas. Therefore, the best council houses are most likely to be sold and taken from the housing stock. That is damaging not only to the rights of local authorities to manage their stocks in the best possible way but to people who are interested in living in council houses, and particularly to applicants on the housing lists.
Not one of the authorities that expressed hostility to the legislation when it was going through the House has withdrawn its hostility and anger at the terms of the legislation. Many Scottish local authorities are being compelled, against their better judgment and against the wishes of those who elected them as recently as May this year, to sell some of their best council housing. We continue to oppose the Government's action.
The Bill deals with housing for the elderly. The Government would not have got into such a mess before the recess if they had not been so pig-headed and dogmatic and so unwilling to listen to the arguments in Committee, in the House and in the Lords. They ignored advice given in the other place by several members of the Conservative Party as well as by Labour, Liberal and independent peers. If they had listened to advice, particularly about housing for the elderly,

they would not have got themselves into this mess and they would not have found it necessary to make the concession. They were also given advice about housing for the disabled.
The Bill was not volunteered by the Government; it was drawn from them with considerable difficulty. They were exteremely reluctant to make any concession. However, the Bill has emerged from the chaos which began before the recess and which continues. The concession is far too limited, and we shall return to it in Committee.
The Bill gives local authorities a discretion. It does not exclude completely from the right to buy the categories of housing covered by the Act. Local authorities are given discretion about whether to buy. In that respect it is an improvement.
When one takes into account the discussions in another place, one realises that the concession for Scotland is not as favourable as the concessions for England and Wales. The Minister said that the Bill will double the number of houses affected by exemptions. He did not say that it increases exemptions from about 6,000 to 12,000. In England and Wales, the exemptions are increased from 220,000 to 440,000. The concession for England and Wales is much greater than the concession for Scotland, despite the number of council houses proportionate to the population being much greater in Scotland than it is in England or Wales. The needs for housing for the elderly in Scotland are certainly as great as, if not greater than, they are in England and Wales.
The Minister made some attempt to explain why England and Wales have a greater concession, but I did not find it convincing. However, it was at least reasonably coherent, which is more than can be said of Lord Mansfield's explanation. He seemed to be incapable of explaining anything. At least today the Minister has tried to give a coherent explanation.
I do not accept that the drafting and framework of the principal Scottish Act is so different from that of the England and Wales Act that we cannot have a concession which is similar to the concession contained in Schedule 1(5) to the England


and Wales Act. That Act does not include the restrictions that are contained in this Bill. The Bill contains a definition of a house with facilities which are substantially different from those in an ordinary dwelling house. The definition in the England and Wales Act could be applied to Scotland and it would bring many more houses within the scope of the Bill.
Anyone who knows anything about housing in Scotland is anxious simply to provide housing for the elderly, however the accommodation is designed or adapted. Large numbers of elderly people need houses of a manageable size. They need smaller houses than young married couples with the expectation of a family or married couples with families living with them. Elderly people need small houses which are suitable when they have retired and have no family responsibilities. There is a tremendous shortage of such houses in Scotland. When there is such a shortage, and when the needs of elderly people are growing simply because their numbers are increasing, it is scandalous to take out of the housing stock housing which is suitable for the elderly.
Many such houses will be sold eventually, following the death of the original occupants, to other people who do not need small houses. Many of the houses are suitable for couples without children. Even with the concessions in the Bill, there is no doubt that we shall lose many council houses which are suitable for elderly people. Many such houses will no longer be occupied by elderly people, and that is a scandal given the current needs of the elderly in Scotland.
We therefore do not accept that the Bill is adequate or that it meets the full obligations that the Government assumed at the beginning of August when they said that they would place Scotland on all fours with England and Wales in respect of the new legislation. The Bill does not do that, and therefore the Government have not discharged their promise.
Therefore, although we shall not vote against the Bill on Second Reading because it contains some concession, we shall seek to amend it in Committee to make it more acceptable in Scottish circumstances, so far as we can do that within the framework of the Act. We shall

endeavour to make it meet the obligations and promises that the Government undertook at the beginning of August but which the debates in the other place have demonstrated they have not fulfilled in drafting the Bill.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) for having missed some of his speech. I wish to raise with the Minister a point that concerns his remarks on clause 2 (e) and (f). I refer, of course, to the infamous Hamilton letter from the chief executive of Glasgow district council.
It seems that the council's efforts to implement or not to implement the Tenants' Rights, Etc. Act (Scotland) involves the question not so much of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, but of the left hand not knowing what the far left hand is doing. As a result, there has been enormous confusion. I appreciate that Labour Members may have slightly different definitions from mine of the terms "right", "left" and "far left".
Every tenant in the city of Glasgow who had applied to buy his house received a letter last week. Its key paragraph reads:
As presently drawn, Section 1 of the Act, which confers on certain tenants a right to buy, does not apply where a landlord mentioned in any of paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of Section 10 (2) of the Act is not the heritable proprietor of the relevant house.
The Council takes the view that, in the strict terms of the Act, it is not the heritable proprietor of the house refered to in your application and that, unless and until sub-section 11 of Section 1 of the Act is amended, the Act does not and cannot apply to that house.
I understand that the Government is promoting legislation to amend the said sub-section. If it does, you may wish to submit a fresh application—although the Council obviously hopes that you will not do so.
That is an appalling letter. I commend Labour Members to read the excellent editorial about it in the Glasgow Evening Times. It is not my purpose to discuss that letter at length. However, one aspect has disturbed many people, What does the council tenant in Glasgow do now? Most people who received the letter naturally assumed that their application was no longer valid. That is totally incorrect. The letter is without justification. It is, frankly, an


attempt, by legalistic jargon, to confuse people and to deny them their rights under the Tenants' Rights Act.
I hope that at an appropriate stage my hon. Friend the Minister will make clear to the council tenants involved precisely what they should do in response to that letter.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is a pity that the Government have lost the opportunity to alter the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act to deal with the great problem of houses for the elderly. Under the public expenditure cuts, housing grants are being cut, and in particular there will be an absence of money for the creation of sheltered houses and of general housing that might be suitable for the elderly.
Clause 1 has been drafted in a grudging and restricted fashion. Ministers have let go the opportunity to expand the availability within the principal Act of decent housing for the elderly.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is not the hon. Gentleman also saying that he will specifically deprive the elderly of the right to buy that is enjoyed by everyone else?

Mr. Wilson: In dealing with the elderly in particular, we should try to provide an adequate housing stock for those who are moving into their declining years and who have, because of their age, less opportunity to move into the private sector and to buy a house. Therefore, many elderly people apply to the housing divisions of the district councils for small houses—for one and a half-, two- or three-apartment houses—to deal with the altered circumstances arising from their families having grown up. For medical reasons they may require a house which, while not having been specially adapted, perhaps is all on ground level and has easy access. These houses are in greatest demand, as I find from personal experience in my constituency.
In the past the Minister has argued on the question of general housing that there would be no real loss from the housing stock because a house that was purchased would still be occupied largely by those who would be entitled to succeed to the tenancy. But with smaller houses it is more likely that the relatives of

elderly people would be prepared to sell the houses and that would take them out of the stock available for letting. It is against that background that the Government have lost an opportunity to make a concession.
I was interested to hear the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) that the terms of the amending Bill in relation to the concession for the elderly is much less generous than the concession contained in the English legislation. I have made it clear in the House that I do not necessarily accept the standard that has been adopted in English legislation as one that should be applied to Scotland. On the other hand, when I see an opportunity developing to improve the circumstances of the Scottish people I pursue it. I see that as one isolated example of generosity that might be taken up.
It is a pity that the Government have framed the Bill in its existing form. The proposed new section 3A is remarkably restrictive in its application when it refers to a dwelling house that
has facilities which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house and which has been designed or adapted for occupation".
Their adoption of this phraseology means that they have lost a valuable second chance to put right one of the glaring difficulties in relation to the common housing stock that is likely to arise from the original Act.

Mr. Barry Henderson: My hon. Friend the Minister has got the Bill right. In addition, the principal Act is both briefer and better than the English Act. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) and others spoke about the problem of housing for the elderly. I think that all would agree that the local authorities' record for providing houses specifically for the elderly has been extremely bad for a long period. The vast proportion of houses available specifically for the elderly have been provided by sources other than the local authorities, which have failed badly in that respect.
I believe that we need more houses for the elderly. The principal Act will positively assist us to have a larger total stock of houses for the elderly because


from the product of the sale of houses funds will be available that can be used to build housing needed to meet current demands, of which the most pressing is more houses for the elderly.
I turn to clause 2(f). If Dundee corporation does not own its houses to such a sufficient extent as to be able to sell them, how is it that it owns its houses to such a sufficient extent as to charge rent for them? It is curious that that problem has not been raised by those who claim to speak for council house tenants in Dundee. I should be interested to know whether my hon. Friend can tell us anything about the cost to the ratepayer and the taxpayer of the bureaucratic nitpicking in Glasgow referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). Surely nothing illustrates more clearly the need for the carefully constructed terms of the principal Act than such stupid nitpicking—which at the end of the day will be proved to be ill-founded in law—and the extent to which many Labour local authorities will go to frustrate the reasonable desire of a great many council house tenants to own their homes—

Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, if it is legally ill-founded, the Government have thought fit to amend the Act?

Mr. Henderson: That is a perfectly simple matter. However, I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Minister, who is extremly good at speaking for himself. I hazard a guess that it is to avoid the necessity for a great deal of time and money being spent unnecessarily by relatively not well-off people who wish to prove that they have such rights in law.
Clause 1(10) of the principal Act sets down the categories of persons who have the right to added discount by virtue of previous public sector tenancies. There has been an unfortunate omission in that part of the Act. I understand that an amendment to correct it would not come within the terms of the Bill before us. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider this point and determine whether any future review of Housing Acts for Scotland might cater for the problem. I refer to the provision in clause

1(10)(1) for persons who have been tenants of the Crown. It states:
in relation to accommodation provided in connection with service by the tenant or occupier as a member of the regular armed forces of the Crown".
When the Committee considered the matter it thought especially of a large category of people, namely, the Armed Services. However, specifically including the Armed Services as a qualification of tenants of the Crown has deprived certain categories of established civil servants who might be in similar positions. They might even move to destinations around the world where the Armed Forces had been. They are not covered by that section. That is the only unfortunate aspect that I have found in the Act. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay attention to that matter on a future occasion.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I confess that I enjoyed the opening passages of the debate. We had the spectacle of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) standing as the champion of the Glasgow council house tenant. There will be cheers ringing in the steets of Newton Mearns and Whitecraigs tonight because of his courageous stand. I have news for the hon. Gentleman. If he goes to Barrhead, where he probably has council tenants, he will find that their views are different from his. It would be better if he talked to them before telling us what we should be doing with council house policy.
I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the Under-Secretary. With all the precise erudition and skill of junior counsel, and praying in aid Professor Halliday and various other luminaries from the world of conveyancing, he explained quite definitively that there was no legal foundation in the apparent loophole discovered by Glasgow district council and other local authorities. He gave it as his professional opinion, backed in every way, that the loophole was without foundation. I hope that he will believe me when I say that it came as a sad anti-climax when he then pointed out that we were nevertheless legislating to deal with the apparent loophole. It is an extraordinary principle on which to draft legislation when Ministers come before


the House and say "This change in the law is unnecessary, without foundation, and we do not need it" but then say "We shall introduce the change anyway as a fourth-line safety measure". That is an indefensible position.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about the position of the individual tenant wishing to purchase his house he will realise that if we do not take the opportunity presented by the Bill to clarify an existing point, large numbers of tenants will have to go to the Lands Tribunal to resolve the matter before certain authorities will be prepared to budge. That might not be a good argument for bringing forward legislation, but as there is an amending Bill before the House it would be silly for the Government not to take the opportunity to assist the tenants to exercise the rights provided for them by Parliament.

Mr. Dewar: If the Minister is right in saying that there is no merit in the argument—and I do not intend to enter into that at this stage, as have learned counsel on both sides—it is wrong to legislate to meet such an argument. If the Minister has to get across the message that the argument is without merit, he should have the courage of his powers of persuasion and talk to the local authorities concerned. If he is saying that those local authorities will go ahead irrespective of the merits of their arguments, shutting the loophole will not prevent them from doing so. Inflammatory and knocking speeches about local authorities such as Glasgow, which has taken a constructive and responsible line in the argument, are not helpful. If the Goverment want a level of co-operation and a civilised and sensible debate about the measure, they should invest in some muzzles and gags—possibly for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), from whom we shall no doubt hear later in the debate, and for, others on the Conservative Back Benches.
I turn to the most substantial point of the Bill, namely, the argument about housing for the elderly. There is no doubt that Hansards of the period are spattered with quotations from luminaries on the Government Front Bench to the effect that England and Scotland are to be treated exactly on a par—on

all fours. The Leader of the House told us that it was simply a matter of technicalities, that the intention would be the same, and that the concessions north and south of the border would be the same. While we shall not oppose the few crumbs thrown to us, we are entitled to say that we are bitterly disappointed by what has emerged in this amending legislation.
It is quite clear—I do not think that this has been seriously challenged by the Minister—that the concession being given in Scotland is much narrower, and will not apply to anything like the same range of property, as the parallel concession south of the border. As I understood the Minister, he did not try to argue on the merits at all. He produced a number of drafting arguments. He argued that there was a certain form of words in section 4(4), and because they were familiar and had been discussed in Committee in the context of that section, it was right and proper that they should be deemed to apply in these circumstances in order to provide another option for that narrow group of housing described in section 4.
I was totally unconvinced by that kind of drafting expediency argument, which seemed to be the basis of his case. Perhaps the Minister can convince me that I am wrong, but I am left with a clear impression that we now have a situation in which housing in Scotland, which would qualify under the terms of the English exemption, will not be covered or caught by the equivalent Scottish legislation. I say that tentatively, because I did not sit on the Committee and did not suffer through those 1750 columns of Hansard.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) quoted figures from the House of Lords debate to the effect that about 6,000 Scottish properties will be involved, whereas in England the equivalent number is 221,000. There are those of us who, in different settings and at different times, have juggled around with Goschen formulae. It would beggar our mathematical ingenuity to make any sort of argument suggesting that that was a fair comparison and an exemption on all fours.
My constituency is a typical Glasgow constituency with a high proportion of


council housing. About 96 per cent. of my electors live in public sector housing. Scattered throughout the constituency are a large number of what are called old people's houses. People come to see me every week at my surgery and say "I would like to get into the two-apartment old people's housing down such-and-such a road." I know exactly what they mean. They mean housing which has been built especially to accommodate pensioners and old people. It is not physically adapted in the sense that one can go in and say "Here is a ramp and here is a special piece of internal equipment." It is two-apartment housing, perhaps round a little square of green, where everyone who is allocated a dwelling is a pensioner. That constitutes the vast majority of the stock of old people's housing in the city of Glasgow and, I suspect, in every industrial conurbation in Scotland.
I will be happy to be told that I am wrong, but as I understand it that will not be covered by the definition contained in the Bill. We may be told that this accommodation does not have facilities that are substantially different from those in an ordinary dwelling house, although it has been designed or adapted for occupation by an elderly person. There is no special alarm system or any other feature which will bring such accommodation within this exemption. The result is that in all these corner or special sites scattered throughout our housing schemes people will be able to come along and use their powers under the Act, and the local authority will be powerless to stop them.
I have no sympathy with this kind of sleight of hand. I do not know whether it is a blind loyalty or just an unfamiliarity with the reality of housing policy in the larger industrial conurbations which leads the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) to argue that in some sort of miraculous way this will lead to an extension of housing for old people in our cities. Along with him I pay tribute to the work of organisations such as Hanover, Bield, Christian Aid and the various other housing associations that are building special-purpose housing. I would not object strongly to a suggestion that the right to buy, irrespective of the wishes of the landlord, should be extended to those housing developments, I presume that the hon. Member for Fife, East would want

that to be done on a natural extension of his own arguments.
The point that I am making is that there will undoubtedly be a diminution in the number of such houses because I am convinced that there will be frequent sales in regard to those sites that I have described. People talk about the rights of the elderly, and argue that they ought to have the same rights under this legislation as any other tenant. But in my view there are greater public rights which affect the elderly as a group. One of the most important is the right to a reasonable supply of special-purpose housing which is adapted for their needs. At present, we are fundamentally short of this form of housing stock. Many of the elderly have perhaps a lesser interest in buying their house because of their financial situation as pensioners and, to put it cruelly, their actuarial expectations. My fear is that quite a number of these special-purpose houses will be bought at second hand from the pensioner by the family. There is no doubt but that that will happen. It will be a temptation. We are all human and at times we give in to temptation. If an elderly mother or aunt lives in an attractive situation in a small flat of this kind, which can be picked up for a low price at a maximum discount, I believe that people will succumb to that temptation and that the housing stock which ought to be reserved for the elderly will be raided in this way. That would be a tragedy, which would lead to a significant diminution in the number of units available to old people in our community.
I want to defend the rights of elderly people, but I also want to defend the rights of the community to maintain a specific provision, which is badly needed, for hundreds and thousands of old people in Scotland who at present are unsuitably housed or housed in ways which are totally unsatisfactory, given their physical requirements. It is the duty of the House to ensure that we pass legislation which allows local authorities to maintain the stock which is needed in order to meet some of the saddest and most demanding needs which all of us as constituency Members of Parliament meet in our daily rounds.
All that we wanted in the context of this argument was what the Government promised us, which was something on all


fours with what exists south of the border. We are not getting that. I appreciate that we shall have to accept what has been offered because as yet we do not have the votes in this House to obtain more. That is why I regard the Bill as a fraudulent amendment to what is essentially a bad piece of housing legislation.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the amendments, particularly the amendment dealing with the sale of council property in Dundee disstrict, where a number of my constituents live. It is quite wrong that in Perth and Kinross district my constituents can now buy their council properties with little or no difficulty, provided that they can meet the requirements of making the purchase and get the loan, whereas constituents in the Dundee district are denied that right because the district council is more concerned about scoring political points and making its name in a way that is damaging to the city and its image.
This matter came up at a conference held in Aviemore last week. During a discussion on the problems of bringing facilities into areas, the Dundee district was specifically mentioned. It clearly came across that councils are often more concerned with the publicity that they generate.
At times it is a shock to remember that Labour Members represent a party which claims that it is concerned about getting workers more of a share of the national kitty. This legislation will give individuals an opportunity to get a bigger and better share of the national kitty, yet they are arguing against it. We understand their political view, and we understand why they often put forward such an argument. If I were a Member who represented a constituency that largely consisted of council properties I, too, would be worried if I felt that the sale of those properties might change the political view of the tenants. It will turn those individuals into property-owning individuals who will perhaps take a different view of State handouts and the way in which the State does things. I understand that, but I find it difficult to understand why Labour Members should suggest that Conservative Members are uncaring. If one looks at the record of individual constituency Mem-

bers, one sees that there is equal caring on both sides of the House. We are talking about the difference in political ideology. It has nothing to do with caring. A caring local Member looks after the problems locally, regardless of his political colour.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does not the hon. Gentleman concede that local authorities will be able to take care of the needs of tenants if they are allowed to retain the power to decide whether they wish to sell council houses? That is denied in the main legislation.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has just made my point. That is what happens in these areas, and in Dundee. People make noises that are designed to give them political exposure so that they can hit the media rather than doing something about caring for individuals.
I recognise that many Labour Members genuinely care. That was brought out clearly in the debates on the housing provisions of the Bill. A number of Labour Members care deeply about individuals and their problems. I should like them to acknowledge that many Conservative Members have direct experience of the problems that we are discussing. We realise that this is a way forward—we do not suggest that it is necessarily the only way forward—and I genuinely believe that it will go some way towards helping many people who want to help themselves and their families.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): This Bill is the only small limited concession by way of amendment to the main legislation, which will go down as one of the worst Acts in the history of public sector housing in Scotland.
Since the Wheatley legislation in the early 1920s we have seen a gradual expansion of public sector housing in Scotland. There were construction programmes not only in the 1920s, but even in the difficult economic period of the 1930s. A massive construction programme was undertaken by the post-war Attlee Labour Government. That was done not for doctrinaire reasons but for good commonsense reasons and because the people, including people of other political persuasions, saw the commonsense solution


to Scotland's housing problems. They realised that the problem could not be solved simply by relying on free market forces. That is still as relevant today as it was 10 or 20 years ago.
Many people, including many of the elderly and disabled and people with special needs, would have virtually no housing opportunity and no roof over their head if it were not for public sector housing. If they had had to rely simply on free market forces, many of those people would now be officially categorised as homeless. But despite that expansion, and what appears to have been a consensus about public sector housing in the past, we are now in danger of seeing the clock being turned back. For the first time in the history of public sector housing we shall see a reduction in public sector housing stock, and that reduction will have resulted from the policies of the Conservative Party. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State should pay attention instead of reading during the debate. His Government are forcing local authorities to sell council houses—with a few minor exceptions such as those included in the Bill—and combining a legislative attack on the public sector housing with refusing to give local authorities enough money for new building.
Already, south of the border, the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose respect for public property is so scant that he even grabbed the Mace in this House and brandished it in front of hon. Members, is attacking public property throughout England and Wales by means of a moratorium on new council house building. It is incumbent upon the Minister to say in his reply whether there are any contingency plans in the Scottish Office for a moratorium north of the border. Even without a 100 per cent. ban on new council house building it is clear that the insufficient resources that the Government are giving to local authorities make it increasingly difficult for them to maintain any sort of housing improvement programme, let alone a programme for new housing construction. That has an effect on the specialised needs of the elderly and disabled. The disabled are not even included in the Bill. Why not? We cater for the special needs of the elderly—I wholly approve of that—so

why should we not give equal weight to the disabled?
The housing associations have done and continue to do their best to provide for specialist needs, but their programmes are being severely curtailed because of the financial constraints on the Housing Corporation. Perhaps the Minister does not realise that. As well as encouraging housing associations to maintain their programmes, we should encourage the local authorities to continue to provide better housing for the elderly and the disabled. That means giving them money for better maintenance, improvements and building programmes. Most local authorities throughout Scotland are complaining not simply about the inadequacy of the rate support grant and housing support grant, but about the inadequacy of capital allocations for housing. Often the weakest members of society will suffer most as a result of the Government's policies.
I welcome this tiny concession, but it is insufficient, because the Government's policies will result in a continuing shortage of housing, especially for the elderly and disabled in Scotland.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again on the Housing Acts in general. We should be thankful for small mercies that this Bill has been introduced.
It is extraordinary, when we consider the important role that Glasgow plays in the West of Scotland, that it requires hon. Members from other areas to put up a spurious case on behalf of the tenants. One wonders why Glasgow has so few Tory Members of Parliament, but there is no doubt a reason.
I wish to talk about two main points. We have to consider the numbers involved. We are told that substantially the provision will bring in equality between the number of homes for the elderly in Scotland and the number of homes for the elderly in England and Wales. The Minister of State in another place said that about 6,000 houses would be affected in Scotland and that the comparable figure in England and Wales is 220,000.
There are several things to be said about that. The first is to draw attention to the monstrous differential that now


exists in those crude figures. Another is that those crude figures are against a background in which there is already a substantially higher proportion of local authority housing in Scotland. Something is wrong. There is no comparability or equality whatever. The only reason that one can find for this is in the nature and wording of the Bill.
The Minister shakes his head, but there can be no other explanation. If the purpose was to bring in equality of treatment in relation to the number of houses for the elderly, the number would have been substantially higher, perhaps by a factor of five or six. Since that is not the purpose, it must be because of the definition of the houses of elderly people given in the Bill. If the Minister has another explanation, perhaps he will give it, instead of shaking his head.

Mr. Rifkind: I am very happy to give the hon. Gentleman the explanation. There has been much discussion about sheltered housing. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, according to the normal definitions of sheltered housing, whereas there are about 220,000 sheltered houses in England and Wales, there are only 6,000 sheltered houses in Scotland. As the Labour Party was in office and responsible for housing for at least five out of the last six years, that is something that Labour Members will have to take into account.

Mr. Buchan: There is, as we have said, a very narrow definition of the houses to which the measure is applicable. The point remains exactly the same. We are now working on the definition of the numbers of sheltered houses, but because of the definition that the Minister has now given us, it means that there is inequality to the extent of about 5 or 6 to 1 in regard to the houses occupied by elderly people. There is no way round that, and it is certainly sharpened by the kind of definition used in the Bill. The criteria given in the Bill are extremely narrow. This is presumably in order to try to relate them to what the Minister has defined as 6,000 houses, but this is a monstrous proposition. This is not the way in which local authorities handle their houses for the elderly.
For example, I have a block of flats in one of my towns in West Renfrewshire,

and the local authority has a specific policy of giving priority to elderly couples. It also allocates some of the flats to younger couples in order to have a few young people in the various blocks so that they can be helpful to the elderly people around them. But that is by no means seen as sheltered housing. These are ordinary council houses, in regard to which the local authority can exercise a proper balance and a proper priority so as to have a reasonable community living in those houses. That priority will go the moment that these houses can be sold. They are not being protected under the Bill.
It is nonsense to say that the elderly people will not buy, because what frequently happens, and will frequently happen, is that the family of the elderly couple will buy. This will mean that the correct housing policy operated by the local authority will be thwarted because the balance and the whole concept will go.
The Government have established double criteria in regard to sheltered housing. I am always suspicious when the criteria are not A or B but A and B. This limits even more drastically the numbers to be protected. The first definition in clause 3A relates to
facilities which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house".
Councils operate a socially valuable policy in letting houses to elderly people and allocating them exclusively to elderly people. These houses are in no sense substantially different from other council houses, although they might perhaps be deliberately built a little smaller. In terms of facilities they are not substantially different and they are not intended to be substantially different from other houses, apart from moving a power plug up or down in order to make it more convenient for the occupant. On the whole, the intention is to give to elderly people the same standards and facilities as apply to any other council houses.
Under the provisions of the Bill that kind of housing will be eliminated. It will eliminate most of the two-apartment houses that my local councils have been building over the last few years especially for old people but with facilities substantially the same as those provided for other council tenants. Even that is not sufficient


for this penny-wise Government, because clause 3A refers to houses which have
been designed or adapted for occupation
and so on. The Government are saying that where a council operates a policy under which it builds houses of a normal standard and type, but designed with a special intention in mind, such a policy will be excluded. That is quite monstrous. That is why we have a figure of only 6,000 houses in Scotland, compared with nearly 250,000 in England and Wales. This is against a background in which the figure should be proportionally higher in Scotland simply because we have a very much greater quantity of council property.
The restrictive definition in the Bill will result in a number of such houses being released into the private sector. I have emphasised that most of the houses used by elderly people are not specifically designed for them and are not substantially different. This means that such houses are a highly attractive proposition to a young couple or to a single person who is a member of the family. The opportunity for queue jumping will now be increased because of the narrowness of the criteria adopted. These houses will become an attractive proposition.
It is obvious that because such houses are occupied by elderly people they will become available that much sooner. They will be removed from the control of the local authorities, whose control over them has been such a valuable social exercise.
We heard the extraordinary proposition that because some people have complained about the existing law the Government have had to bring in an amendment to change it, although the Government believe that the law is perfectly sound as it stands. I have never before heard of a Government bringing in a sledgehammer to smash a non-existent nut. Obviously it is nonsense.
I draw the attention of the Minister to section 15(1) of the parent Act. My understanding is that the reference to paragraphs 1 to 6 should be to paragraphs 1 to 7, and my hon. Friend's have tabled an amendment to deal with that. Are we to understand that the Government do not understand their own Bill, or that they wish to avoid raising the issue involved? If the Bill is wrong in that

sense, as we believe it to be, how can the Government claim that they are trying to clear up and explain the legalities? The whole thing is nonsense and the Government know it.
This is a tawdry Bill. Nevertheless it is one that we must accept. We shall try to improve it in Committee. We must accept it because the Government are beginning to understand the principle involved. Having made a monstrous inroad into the opportunities to develop a socially valuable housing policy, they are now at least going some way towards recognising their errors, even if they are going only a little way in rectifying their ill deeds.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I missed the Under-Secretary's opening remarks. However, I have read the remarks of the noble Earl of Mansfield, which probably will not be a million miles away from those of the Minister. I missed the Minister's honeyed words. He invariably sugared the unpleasant pill that we had to swallow in Committee in the 1,750 columns of Hansard for which he was largely responsible in the sense that he was probably the only person on the Government Benches who spoke at length in defence of the wretched piece of main legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] The consternation amongst my hon. Friends stems from the fact that it is alleged that a Glasgow Tory is within the building. I confess that in my short time here I have not seen many examples of that species.
However, I am glad that the Glasgow tenants will now be protected. I only hope that they will be protected by a better piece of legislation than the one that is presented to us today. This is a mean, grudging little Bill. It has been brought before the House because the Government were defeated elsewhere and were shamed into trying to make amends for a ridiculous exemption in the previous legislation.
My hon. Friends have referred to the undertaking that was given by the Secretary of State for the Environment, following his humiliation in the other place, that there would be an amendment to allow elderly people to live in houses without the threat of those houses being sold. It was said that this measure would


be on all fours with the English legislation. One can go through the Bill and nitpick quite easily, as the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) said, but the nitpicking is of significanse. I take as an example the reference to an ordinary dwelling house.
Many of us are not clear about the difference between a dwelling house and an ordinary dwelling house. We are not sure about the concept of an ordinary dwelling house put forward by the noble Earl of Mansfield as he lives in Scone Palace. We all know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) lives in the attic of a noble pile, and it may be that he has a different view of what is an ordinary house.
If we are to legislate on this matter, we must be more specific than the generalities in which the Government are trading. This legislation is supposed to serve the elderly. In England the elderly are explicitly called people of pensionable age. There is no reference to that in the Bill.

Mr. Rifkind: Read the Bill.

Mr. O'Neill: The amendment serves to illustrate the slap-happy manner in which the Government have gone about this whole business. If they were keen to tidy up the legislation, why did they not make it more specific in relation to an ordinary dwelling? Are we to have more legislation? Are we to have another Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill to tidy up future mistakes which come out or, if not future mistakes, opportunities which will arise for local authorities again to consider their responsibilities?

Mr. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Neill: I am always willing to have information from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman's criticism of errors in the Bill is perhaps a reflection on those who served on the Committee from Christmas to Easter, some of whom made very long speeches which were not very much to the point. Perhaps it would be better to draw their attention to what he is criticising.

Mr. O'Neill: The quality of the information from the hon. Member for

Fife, East today is no better than it was during the long periods in Committee when on occasion he offered erroneous information. Indeed, he was probably the most voluble Back-Bench Member on the Government side. He asked whether we let this error slip through. It is the Government's responsibility, not ours, to get the legislation right. We drew attention to other matters which are as yet still not resolved—for example, whether local authorities will have records establishing the length of tenancies. That is as important as the question of the heritable proprietor.
We shall accept the Bill because it is the best that we can get. Its provisions are not nearly as satisfactory as those for England. The legislation for England covers types of housing which do not exist in Scotland. Therefore, allowance should be made for the situation in Scotland.
The Bill is being palmed off on the House of Commons as a grudging obeisance to the undertakings which were lightly given in the summer by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Bill is being rushed through. It could have been left to the Queen's Speech and dealt with in a different way in the new year. I am sure that there will be plenty of time, because the Government are running out of matters on which to legislate.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should have discussed that point with his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), because it was his specific request that the Government should use the first available opportunity to bring this legislation before the House.

Mr. O'Neill: It is clear that it has not in any way been opportune in the sense that the Government have not made adequate provision to make the position in Scotland similar to that in England. If they cannot do that, they should withdraw the legislation and come back with a better Bill.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I apologise to the Minister because I suffer from the disadvantage of not having heard his opening remarks. I was arguing with the Daily Record,


which did not get right who I voted for in the Labour Party leadership election. I thought that that was more important than listening to the Minister.
I want to mention two matters. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for mentioning them if he has already covered them.
The Bill is not a great concession to the spirit of what was promised. I am not proposing to argue about the difference in legislation between England and Wales; that will not take us very far. Nevertheless, this is not a concession, as I understand it. The responsibility is put on the Secretary of State. If a local authority wants to sell a house, as I understand it, that is the finish of the matter. It is only in the unlikely circumstance of the authority refusing to sell a house that the matter will go to the Secretary of State, who will no doubt bend over backwards to allow the house to be sold unless it comes within the very narrow definition which we went over at great length in Committee. If I am right, there is no significant change in the Bill as it is. The Minister shakes his head. I hope that he can explain it to me, because basically it does not alter the definition of a house other than to make it substantially different from an ordinary dwelling house.
There are two groups of houses. There are houses with a call system, which are excluded, and houses for which there is a different procedure provided that they come into a certain category. If the Minister has explained all that in detail, I apologise.
As for the other point which has created some doubt—the heritable proprietor—I am surprised at the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) trying to make fun of Glasgow district council on this issue. The noble Lord Mansfield referred to one authority in Scotland in a debate in the other place. He said:
only one local authority—which has long-advertised its intention of exploiting every opportunity of causing delay and discouraging tenants—has decided to exploit this doubt as a pretext for refusal to sell any house which it took over on local government reorganisation in 1975."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 October 1980; Vol. 414, c. 528.]

We made no secret of the fact that Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland would take every advantage within the law of expressing opposition, and that if that meant delays, they would do that within the law. So what is all the fuss about? No one has done anything out-with the law, as far as I am aware. This highlights the fact that there must be a doubt about the law when the Government have to bring in such amending legislation at this stage.
Whether it is Glasgow, Dundee or any other local authority, it is within the authority's rights within the law to make its point, consistent with its policy. The authorities warned the Government that any opportunity such as this one would be used legitimately. Therefore, I do not understand what hon. Members are complaining about.
I wanted clarification of my interpretation of this amending Bill as regards provision for specially designed houses. I hope that the Minister will be able to give it.

Mr. Ernie Ross: We on the Opposition Benches welcome this opportunity once more to draw to the attention of people at large the provisions of a measure which we in Scotland do not believe Conservative Members have a remit to put on the statute book. I should like to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). We have made it clear from the Opposition Benches that we shall seek to find any and every loophole—

Mr. Henderson: Legal or not.

Mr. Ross: —to ensure that council houses are not sold until the electorate can exercise their right and rid this country of one of the worst Governments it has had since the 1930s. [An hon. Member: "The worst."] I would not necessarily disagree with that.
When we consider the heritable proprietors of the council stock in Dundee, we find that there is a very creditable record. I am sure that it is shared by all the old local corporations throughout Scotland. It is a record of providing very badly needed houses for tenants living in slum dwellings which were generally owned by private landlords. It is


noticeable that even within this small amending Bill the Government have not taken the opportunity to give the same rights to tenants of private landlords as they are attempting to give to council tenants.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Provan said, we shall seek to exploit any loophole that we can find to delay the abuse of the sale of council housing, which can only lead to crises building up in the cities in our constituencies. The Government have made no effort to take any account of these crises.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said that Conservative Members cared deeply and that Labour Members should understand that. I find it rather extraordinary that in the same time scale as this amending Bill was being drawn up the Minister should write and confirm that he does not intend to provide funds for the Scottish Special Housing Association to build houses on vacant gap sites in my constituency. It is also rather strange that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could not find any time to come to Dundee to meet the Dundee Building Trades (Employers) Association—not the district council or the trade union movement—and to discuss the serious problems facing the construction industry in Dundee.
Despite attempts made by Conservative Members to suggest that all Opposition Members do is simply seek to prevent people from owning their houses, I draw the Minister's attention to the recent announcement by the Dundee district council. That council has provided sites for private houses which could lead to 600 houses being built, but they will not build because the Government have put strains on the private house building sector. These sites are owned by the district council. They are being offered to the private sector if it will build houses now. Such houses would go some way towards helping the housing situation in Dundee. They would certainly satisfy a need on the part of those who wish to buy houses in the private sector, and people living in areas of bad housing could move into them. Conservative Members will do nothing to allow the building industry in Dundee to take advantage of this very generous offer by Dundee district council.
There is not much that one can say about the Bill other than that it is just another little step by Conservative Members to prosecute a policy which does not enjoy any support in Scotland. Although they may argue about substantial numbers, when looked at in total in comparison with council waiting lists, the numbers pale into insignificance. If there is one amendment of the law which should be in the Bill, it is an amendment that would allow district councils to proceed with the building of badly needed council housing to alleviate the serious shortages in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Martin (Glasgow, Spring-burn): I notice that almost every Conservative Member has attacked Glasgow district council. It is worth pointing out that before last May that council contained a substantial number of conservative members. Every Labour candidate in Glasgow made it plain to the electorate of the city that he was opposed to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill and would do all in his power to prevent the sale of council houses. The result of the elections last May was that the people of Glasgow gave an overwhelming vote of confidence to the Labour Party in their city, to such an extent that there are now very few Conservative members on Glasgow district council.
The Scottish National Party could not make up its mind at any stage when it had members on the district council and was completely defeated in the election.
When my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) referred to housing associations and said that all of them would be suffering from severe financial restraint imposed by the Government the Minister nodded his head in disagreement. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to tell us exactly what the position will be concerning housing associations. In the city of Glasgow a great deal of work is being done to help to relieve housing problems particularly as regards elderly people. The associations are very worried that the Government will embark on yet another cutback in their budgets.
It is nonsense to say that to sell off two-apartment houses will make more houses available. Many of my constituents took up occupancy of their homes


in the 1950s when they had large families. Their families have grown up and there is now under-occupation of four- and five-apartment houses. It is not uncommon to find an elderly widow living in a five-apartment house in my constituency. The only answer is for the local authority and housing associations to build two-apartment flats. They would be snapped up immediately by the elderly. That would mean that young couples with large families would be able to move into the larger houses. They will not be given that opportunity if houses are taken out of the local authority's ownership.
It is nonsense to suggest that more houses will become available. The housing situation will continue to get worse. In more and more instances tenants will find that they are under-occupying their large local authority houses when their families leave.
I am disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity to discuss estate management when the Tenants' Rights, Etc., (Scotland) Bill was being discussed in Committee. I served as a councillor for seven years. The council of which I was a member was able to persuade people to take houses in what were known as hard to let areas. We were able to demonstrate to them that we would increase estate management, introduce more supervisors and install more community facilities.
If there is to be large-scale owner occupation, it should be made plain to the owner-occupiers that they have a responsibility to ensure that they finance estate management in their areas as well as the community facilities that the housing departments are providing. This measure will lead to a great many difficulties for local authorities. It is shameful that the Government, who tell us that they believe in freedom, should take power away from democratically elected local authorities.

Mr. George Robertson: dare say that we should be grateful for small mercies. One of the small mercies for which we should be grateful—it is, indeed, a small one—is that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has opened

and will close the debate. That will place us in a more advantageous position than those in another place who were assisted by the eighth Earl of Mansfield. The Under-Secretary of State may not believe in this amending Bill but there is a chance that he understands it. That may be due to the fact that in his constituency there are a few council houses. It may be due to the fact that he has a constituency. That is the major difference between those who represent the people of Scotland in this place and those who represent them in another place.
It seems that we have failed to get across to Conservative Members that the Bill is not being volunteered by a Government who are concerned about the impact of their legislation on the council housing stock of Scotland. They have not recognised the Bill in their hour of repentance as being in the caring tradition of Conservatives, including such self-appointed carers as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker).
The amending Bill is before us because it was forced out of the Government. The concession was forced out of them by another place. It was forced upon them because the common sense of others dictated that there was something in that which the Government had set their face against. In the crowded timetable leading up to the Summer Recess the Government found that they could not escape the obligation that had been imposed upon them. It is nonsense when Conservative Members pretend that the Bill is being introduced in the spirit of caring for the community or, to quote the Minister, that it has been introduced in recognition of the fact that this is an area in which the public have an overriding interest. It is strange that that overriding interest that is now recognised in the Bill was ignored so clearly and absolutely during the 80 hours or so that we spent in Committee discussing the previous measure.
As I said, the Government were forced to make the concession. Although we shall not force a Division on Second Reading, that does not mean that we are contented with the general issue that is before the House. We shall refrain from dividing the House because the few crumbs that have been forced from


the Government are better than the position that the Government took when they were master in their own house.
Those who have participated in the debate have highlighted the defects that exist within the amending Bill. They have drawn attention to the clear distinction that is now being drawn between the legislation for England and Wales and that which will apply in Scotland. Those defects and that distinction will remain, irrespective of the fact that there are more people in the age group with which we are concerned in Scotland and irrespective of the fact that Scotland's housing problems, especially for this age group, are recognised to be greater than those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There was no greater champion of the cause of sheltered housing and housing for the elderly than the Minister. That was his stance before he took office. Irrespective of all the facts and the needs of Scotland, we are being told that this mean, grudging and restricting little concession will be the Government's contribution to protecting the houses of the elderly in the public sector in Scotland.
The contributions of Lord Ross of Marnock in another place ably illustrated the scale of the problem that faces Scotland. There are 184,000 married couples in Scotland with a male member over the age of 65 years. There are 448,000 single people of pensionable age. There are 632,000 family units in the qualifying categories that we are discussing. All that we shall protect by means of this amending measure will be an additional 6,000 units. That will be the extent of the protection, despite the Minister's talk about the community's overriding interest. All the other houses built for the elderly, made suitable for the elderly, designed for the elderly and intended for the elderly can be sold off on demand and local authorities will be unable to make their own decisions.
I am not allowed by the rules of order to quote verbatim the words of those in another place, but the speech of Baroness Elliot of Harwood is one that Ministers should read carefully. I shall paraphrase it. The baroness seemed astonished when she was told by Lord Ross of Marnock that local authorities

were to be put in the position of having to sell two-apartment houses that were clearly designed and built for the needs of the elderly in her area. If someone of her local government experience who is such a staunch supporter of the Government is unaware of the impact of the Bill, how many more local councillors in Scotland will suddenly wake up to the implications of this disastrous measure for their housing policies?
In the past local authorities have perhaps not done enough for the needs of the elderly. Gradually and perceptibly there has been an increase in the number of two-apartment and small houses that are being made available. In Committee the Minister's defence of the sale of council houses was that those who live in council houses and who would buy council houses are those who would be living in them anyway. However, by definition those who are in the qualifying categories would not be in long-term possession of the houses that are the subject of this measure. The loopholes that will be available under this measure will be available to those who wish to take these necessary houses out of the total council housing stock.
What sanctimonious humbug we have heard about the exploitation of loopholes. When the Conservative Party was in Opposition it paraded its belief in searching out every loophope. It now claims to believe in the spirit and letter of every word of the law.
When members of the Conservative Party who sit on the Front Bench are not in the House they work for consultancies whose purpose is to exploit every possible loophole. The chairman of the Conservative Party defended the use of loopholes in the tax laws so that the Vestey family could cream off substantial sums of money. That same party sanctimoniously comes to the House, without the benefit of learned lawyers, and tells us that it is wrong to exploit loopholes in the interest of the people.
We hear echoes of the speeches that were made on the subject of Tameside. Those echoes jar against the speeches made by the hon. Members for Renfrew-shire, East (Mr. Stewart) and for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson), and their outrage at the use of any loophole. The Minister is engaged in a pantomime and uses the


heavy brute force of legislation to block loopholes that he claims do not exist. We shall comment on that in Committee.
The Government have embarked on an exercise that involves limiting the authority, power and role of local authorities. From the moment that the Conservative Party came into office it began to demolish the powers of local authorities and to restrict their right to take decisions and to look after the interests of their electors. Of course, Big Brother knows best when a Conservative Government are in office. That is clearly shown. That is why the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) isolated himself from the leadership and why he has often said that he cannot vote in the Government Lobby.
We welcome the concession and recognise it for what it is. However, it remains mean, restrictive and grudging. The Government have gone as far as they can without infringing the rights that they pretend to have conferred on individuals at the expense of the community's general needs. However many times this subject is brought to the Government's attention, they refuse to see the implications and the problems that will result from their blind attitude to local authority asset stripping.
It appears that we shall not change the Government's mind. The proof of this pudding is in the indigestion that it will cause. The problem will not go away. Indeed, it will only become worse for the elderly. As that problem grows, the poverty of the Government's policy will be seen for what it is.

Mr. Rifkind: Several right hon. and hon. Members have passed critical comments about the way in which my noble Friend the Minister dealt with the Bill in the other place. I listened to parts of that debate and read all the speeches that were made. My noble Friend gave a superb explanation of the Bill and convinced the other place of the arguments put forward.
In his opening comments, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) said that when the Labour Party came to office—although it should be "if" rather than "when"—it would wish to repeal the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scot-

land) Act. Although that saddens us, it does not worry us. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will go round Scotland telling council tenants that when the Labour Party gets into office it will withdraw their right to buy. I have no doubt that the more that statement is repeated, the further away the day will be when the Labour Party can carry out that promise.
The right hon. Member for Craigton also said that events since the enactment of that Bill indicated that there was no substantial or dramatic interest in the right to buy. He alleged that the Act was being applied selectively. There is no foundation for that suggestion. The Scottish Office alone has had over 3,500 inquiries from council tenants seeking application forms and information about the right to buy. Citizens advice bureaux and other bodies have been flooded with applications. The number of inquiries and completed application forms are far greater than the Government had expected. However, we are delighted.
Certain hon. Members referred to the Scottish Special Housing Association. They might like to know that the SSHA has 100,000 houses in Scotland and that 10,000 tenants have contacted the association asking for information or application forms. Given the allegations made by Opposition Members it is particularly interesting that the SSHA told me that the applications and inquiries came from tenants in all forms of housing, and not only from those living in what might be called the better areas. The SSHA has has already sold 1,000 houses to tenants, but it cannot see any pattern in the type of tenant applying, or in the areas in which they live. That confirms what the Government said throughout the passage of the Bill, namely, that these rights will be attractive not only to tenants in the so-called desirable areas but to all Scotland's council tenants, because they will benefit. We are delighted that the tenants, by their words and deeds, are responding in that way.
The right hon. Member for Craigton stressed the alleged differences between the provisions in the Bill and the changes made to the Housing Act. If he and his Front Bench colleagues take that view, they have left it rather late in the day to tell the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the


right hon. Gentleman on 7 October. He enclosed a copy of the Bill, as he had undertaken to do. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has been aware of the contents of the Bill for about a month. We have not yet received any response from the right hon. Gentleman complaining about the provisions of the Bill or suggesting that they are significantly different from the provisions now before the House.

Mr. Milian: The Bill has been debated in the other place. I shall read what the Secretary of State said when he sent a draft of the Bill, which is slightly different from the Bill before us. He took a great deal of trouble to get the Bill to me on a particular day. I wondered then why he was so anxious that I should receive it that afternoon. I discovered the answer when I received the letter. He wrote:
It will be most convenient to have the Bill introduced in the House of Lords and I am arranging for a print in this form to be introduced in that House as early as possible this week.
In other words, I received the Bill just as it was being published.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the debate in the other place was not held until 21 October, or two weeks after the right hon. Gentleman received the Bill. During that period we did not receive any representation from the right hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends. They had a copy of the Bill and saw it before anyone else, in accordance with the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend. Yet they made no representations.

Mr. Millan: I shall take up that point later, when we discuss the next amendment. Normally, Bills are debated in this House. These provisions have been thoroughly debated in the other place and its deficiencies have been pointed out. So far, the Government have refused to amend the Bill. As far as we can tell they will do exactly the same thing today. It has never been suggested, either in that letter or on any occasion, that the Government are interested in amending the Bill. I received that Bill as a matter of courtesy a day or two before it was published.

Mr. Rifkind: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. I am sure that

he will remember that one amendment was accepted in the other place and it has been incorporated into the Bill.

Mr. Milian: I do not wish to continue this argument now, because it is relevant to the first group of amendments. During the major debates in the other place representations were made not only by Labour peers but by Liberal peers, several independent peers and several Conservative peers. However, the Government steadfastly refused to make any concessions on the most important issue, namely, that the drafting of the Bill should meet the Government's promise to place Scottish legislation on all fours with English legislation. That promise has not been fulfilled. By reading the appropriate section of the Housing Act 1980 and what is in this Bill—as I shall do when we come to the first group of amendments—I will show that the Bill does not place Scotland on all fours with England. Therefore, that promise, which was given solemnly in the House by the Secretary of State, has not been discharged.

Mr. Rifkind: As the right hon. Gentleman says, we shall have the opportunity in Committee to discuss these matters in detail. It is quite clear, both from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman and those of his hon. Friends, that the only sort of Bill that they consider would meet the Government's commitment would be a provision entitling the local authority to refuse to sell any house that was occupied by an elderly person, simply on the grounds that it was occupied by an elderly person. That is quite clear from the speeches that were made. I do not necessarily dissent from the force with which hon. Members put their arguments, but basically they believe that a house which is occupied by an elderly person should not come under the right to buy provisions. That might be their point of view. But the undertaking that was given by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Scotland did not cover all houses occupied by elderly persons. It covered a specific kind of house occupied by elderly persons. In that respect the two Bills are on all fours.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister is slightly misrepresenting the tenor of the speeches


from the Labour side of the House. What worries many of us is that the very narrow legal definition does not cover the vast majority of those houses—usually two-apartment houses—which are usually grouped on a specific site, specifically preserved for letting to old people. We want a definition that would encompass these houses. Anything short of that makes this the most nominal and cosmetic of changes.

Mr. Rifkind: Whether the hon. Member thinks that this is simply a cosmetic change is a matter for him. He must realise that neither the English nor the Scottish measure talks simply about houses that are reserved for elderly persons. Both measures talk about houses that have been designed or adapted to meet the needs of elderly persons and that is the basic point at issue.

Mr. Dewar: If the Minister accepts—and I do not think that this has been seriously challenged—that the results of the English and Scottish exemptions will be very different, and if he is arguing that the basis of the definition is the same, the villain of the piece must be the Secretary of State's interpretation. That is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The Minister cannot argue that the Bill is on all fours with the English measure, either in terms of definition or interpretation, without destroying the argument that the results will be very different.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Member is saying that there are far more houses in this definition in England and Wales than there are in Scotland, he is quite right. Even proportionately, there are far more houses in England. That is true, but it is not any fault of the present Government, nor is it a consequence of the legislation. We are dealing with two groups of housing. It so happens that there are about 6,000 houses in Scotland owned by local authorities that come into the category of sheltered housing. I am advised that in England and Wales there are more than 200,000 houses in the same category. That is not our problem, nor is it the fault of the legislation. It happens to be a fact of life.
On this question of the category of houses refused for sale by the English and Scottish provisions, when the Secretary

of State for the Environment mentioned the figure of 200,000 he based it on a recent survey undertaken by the Oxford polytechnic. This survey suggested that there are in England and Wales 228,000 units specially designed for the elderly but which do not have an alarm call or a warning system, and which are therefore comparable in most respects with the amenity housing which is excluded from the right to buy as a result of the Bill.
Perhaps because of the different attitudes of local authorities in England and Wales, or perhaps because of the different priorities of the previous Labour Secretary of State for the Environment from those of the last Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, there are, even proportionately, far more houses in that category in England and Wales than there are in Scotland. That is not something that legislation can deal with, nor is it a consequence of any legislative provisions.

Mr. Buchan: The Minister is perpetuating the inequities. What is his definition of "designed for". If a group of houses were designed for elderly people but were in fact not substantially different from other council houses, would he regard them as falling within the criteria? If not, he has excluded them from the double criteria.

Mr. Rifkind: When the Department of the Environment mentioned the figure of 200,000, it based that not on its own estimates but on the survey of the Oxford polytechnic. These were the best figures available. Clearly a house which is a one- or two-apartment house cannot be said to be specially designed or adapted for elderly persons simply because it has one or two rooms. There are many such houses occupied by persons of any age in different circumstances. Therefore, one has to look at the specific circumstances of the house and that is why the provisions of the Bill enable a local authority, if it believes it is in such a category, to submit the application to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) raised this point. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is satisfied that the provisions of the measure have been met a notice of refusal must be sent. There is a discretion that was not present before, and that is a considerable


change, albeit that the Opposition feel that only a relatively small number of houses are affected. Obviously we can go into more detail on this matter in Committee.
I turn to the points that were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). My hon. Friends the Members for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) and Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) also mentioned the attitude that has been taken by certain authorities, notably Glasgow and Dundee, on the consequences of this provision. When Glasgow district sent to the tenants who had applied to purchase their houses the letter to which my hon. Friends have alluded I was very surprised. A couple of weeks earlier Dundee district had indicated its intention to try to delay the selling of council houses to its tenants on the basis that there was an apparent loophole in the Bill. Councillor John Kernaghan, the Labour chairman of the Glasgow housing committee, was asked at that time whether Glasgow Labour group took a similar view of the provisions of the Act and whether it would use the loophole. His reply was quoted in the Glasgow Herald on 16 October:
We have looked in detail at the clause in question but have decided that it would be stupid to press the point.
If it was stupid on 16 October surely it did not cease to be stupid some days later when this letter was sent out on the housing committee's behalf by the director of administration of the city of Glasgow. I am saddened by this stupid action—to quote the committee's own assessment of the matter—because clearly it is unfortunate for the tenants.
What should tenants do in such a situation? The Scottish Office's view—and this is a matter on which the Lands Tribunal may issue its own opinion—is that the terms of the letter from Glasgow district council do not constitute a refusal. Certainly this is a delaying tactic, but we do not think that the letter constitutes a refusal, and if the Lands Tribunal were to come to a similar conclusion that would mean that Glasgow district had not formally refused its tenants and would be obliged, given the terms of the amending Bill before the House, to process the application in the normal way.
The response of tenants throughout Scotland since the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act came into effect has been

far better than the Government expected and better than the figures in the explanatory memorandum. That illustrates that even in the present difficult circumstances, with high mortgage rates and the other problems inherent in house purchase, so substantial is the interest of Scottish council tenants in exercising their rights under the Act and so anxious are they to acquire the same level of home ownership as people elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that over the next few months and years many thousands of them in all forms of council property throughout the length and breadth of Scotland will take the opportunity to buy their homes. That provision would not have been available to them but for the terms of the Act. It will he to the undying shame of the Labour Party that when council tenants were given the opportunity to become home owners Labour Members. for once in serried, unanimous ranks, tried to deny to Scotland's 1 million council tenants a right which they wanted, which Parliament has provided and which will transform the housing circumstances of the Scottish people.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 1

SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO AUTHORISE REFUSAL TO SELL CERTAIN DWELLING-HOUSES PROVIDED FOR ELDERLY PERSONS

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'to' to end of line 16 and insert—

'(a) a dwelling-house which is one of a group of dwelling houses which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons of pensionable age and a social service or special facilities are provided in close proximity to the group of dwelling houses for the only or main purpose of assisting those persons; or
(b) a dwelling-house which is designed or specially adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age and it is the


practice of the landlord to let it only for occupation by such persons.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 2, in page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'which' in line 13.
No. 4, in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'person' to end of line 16 and insert—
'and it is the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling-house for occupation by an elderly person'.
No. 5, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'special'.
No. 6, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'facilities and'.
No. 7, in page 2, line 23, leave out 'facilities and'.

Mr. Steel: The broad sweep of the argument was covered on Second Reading. Having listened carefully, I am convinced that the wording of the Bill does not meet the undertaking given to the House of Commons by more than one Minister. My amendment and the others are directed to that.
The English Housing Bill was returned to this House with amendments from the other place, including an amendment to widen the exclusion of the right-to-buy clause to houses which had been specially adapted and designed for elderly people. The Government gave in on that amendment, and there was pressure from Scottish Members in various parts of the House to make sure that the Scottish Act was brought into line.
Much has been said about the handling of the Bill in the other place. My noble Friends Lord Thurso and Lord Mackie have complained to me about it, and I wish to substantiate what was said by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). The kindest thing that I can say is that it is clear that the Earl of Mansfield was not properly informed about the undertakings that had been given to Members of this House, otherwise he would not have said:
we cannot just wave a copy of Hansard about and say that undertakings were given, vaguely, to bring Scotland into line with England, because they were not."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 October 1980; Vol. 414, c 502.]

I contend that a specific undertaking was given, and not only that referred to by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In answer to a question from me, the Leader of the House said:
On the Housing Bill, it is vital"—
I ask learned Members to note the word "vital"—
that Scotland and England should be treated equally in these matters."—(Official Report, 6 August 1980, Vol. 990, c. 528.]
This House was given categorical undertakings that the amendments introduced into the English legislation in that area would be repeated in the Scottish legislation. One has to take account of the terminology of the legislation, so the amendments would not be repeated word for word. However, I ask whether the wording in the Bill matches in any way the wording in the English legislation. I contend that it does not, and that is why there are these amendments.
The Scottish Bill treats not only elderly people but the physically disabled considerably less fairly than the English legislation. The Bill contains the new exclusion clause, but it has been drawn as narrowly as possible to apply to as few houses as possible.

Mr. Henderson: I quibble with the right hon. Gentleman about the Scottish Bill treating elderly or disabled people less fairly. The principal Act originally gave elderly people the right to buy their houses. The legislation in the amendment Bill is to limit the right that they will have. They are being treated less fairly than other council house tenants.

Mr. Steel: We covered that argument on Second Reading. I am talking of the treatment of such houses in England and Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is arguing whether the selling of houses in principle is fair or unfair. We are now attempting to get the legislation right. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can assist us by keeping quiet.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman's noble Friends in another place tried to put down amendments maintaining that because there was no provision for the disabled the Government had not met their commitment. That has no basis in reality. The undertaking given was that the Scottish Act would contain provisions corresponding with changes that


were made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the last stages of the passage of the English legislation. That was not relevant to the disabled, but simply concerned the elderly. I do not dispute that there may be, in practice, different provisions for the disabled, but that has nothing to do with the undertaking given.

Mr. Steel: I concede that the difference that am speaking of is not covered by the legislation.
The exclusion clause has been drawn to apply to as few houses as possible. The house described in the Bill must have facilities that are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling house and must have been designed or adapted for occupation by an elderly person with "special needs". In other words, the occupier would have to be extremely infirm and elderly. In the English Act houses designed or adapted for physically disabled persons were in the exclusion clause all along, and thus it could apply to young disabled people, such as those suffering from multiple sclerosis or accident victims.
From the start, the English Act was more generous in two respects; it recognised houses built for pensioners—as likely as not small houses in town centres—and houses adapted for the physically disabled, as well as sheltered housing.

The Under-Secretary said that the parent Scottish Act refers to houses especially adapted for the physically disabled and the elderly. However, instead of excluding them from the right to buy, it imposes a pre-emption clause which means that when the time comes for the original owner to dispose of the house the local authority must be given first refusal. That might have been considered an adequate safeguard when the legislation was drafted, but in these days of strict cash limits on council spending who can be certain that local authorities will be able to afford to buy back those houses? That needs to be taken into account in considering the narrowness of the definition in the Bill.

At one time in the history of the legislation, lobby groups for the disabled and the elderly thought that those people should not be discriminated

against by being denied the right to buy. But their tune changed significantly when it was realised that it was only a matter of time before the specially adapted or designed houses would pass out of councils' stock and future generations of disabled and elderly people would be denied those facilities.

My party is not against the principle of the sale of council houses to sitting tenants, as is the Labour Party, but we object to the reckless or wide sweep of the legislation, because it does not take account of the continuing social needs of a minority of the population.

It would be a paradox if, having laid upon local authorities a statutory obligation to provide for the special housing needs of the elderly, the House decided that when those properties had been built to discharge that duty they could be arbitrarily or compulsorily taken out of the stock by purchase. It would be a waste of money and would impair the ability of local authorities to carry out the duty that we have put upon them.

The undertaking to treat England and Scotland equally in these matters has not been met. The Housing Act 1980 outlined three categories of housing that are exempted from the right to buy—houses adapted or designed for the physically disabled, groups of dwelling houses designed for the elderly and provided with special facilities—sheltered housing—and houses designed simply for occupation by those of pensionable age.

The house in the Bill is not exactly any of those described in the Housing Act. It is what my noble Friend Lord Thurso called a shadowy amalgam of them all. In so being, it succeeds in being none of them.

Unless we take steps to improve the Bill it will be a form of enforced municipal asset stripping. The parent Act is compulsory purchase in reverse. It is a compulsory sale order which will affect all councils, and it is essential for us to try to broaden the definition in the Bill, as I attempt to do in the amendment, to make sure that the essential quality of housing stock for the elderly is not dramatically diminished over the next few years to the point where elderly people will find that there are no suitable houses for them.

Mr. Milian: We are taking a number of amendments in my name with amendment No. 1, which is acceptable to me. I accept everything that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said about the provisions in the Bill compared with those in the Housing Act 1980, but I shall restrict my remarks to the pledges given at the beginning of August.
The Minister has already tried—and no doubt he will try again—to obscure the issue by introducing a number of matters that are not directly relevant to the promises given in August and whether they are properly discharged in the Bill. I assume that the Minister will not try to deny that a pledge was given to treat Scotland in the same way as England and Wales had been treated and certainly no less favourably.
Until the controversy relating to the elderly arose, the provisions for the disabled and sheltered housing in English and Scottish legislation were different. There are different definitions, but that is irrelevant to the point that we are discussing.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that the provisions in Scotland are generally less favourable than those in England and Wales, but that was the position before the question of the concession arose. I should like to see the changes for which the right hon. Gentleman argued, but I am not claiming that the Government made a pledge to change, for example, the definitions of the disabled or sheltered housing. The Minister said that there are proportionately fewer sheltered houses in Scotland than in England and Wales. That is interesting, but it has nothing to do with our argument. He did not go on to say that the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act, and the Housing Act before the concession, excluded sheltered housing in any case. In Scotland the definition of sheltered housing includes facilities such as a call system and the services of a warden. The definition of sheltered housing in England is that contained in paragraph (a) of amendment No. 1. That was in the English Bill before the concession was made. There was something in the English Bill about sheltered housing, in relation to both the elderly and the disabled. There was one

definition in the Scottish Bill and a different definition in the English Bill. I think that the English Bill is more favourable, but I am not arguing that point now.
The Government gave a pledge that the new concession on the elderly would be the same in Scotland as in England and that the definition would be the same. The concession put in the Housing Act after various negotiations and rows and the trouble that the Government got into in another place excluded from the right to buy houses designed or specially adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age and which it was the practice of the landlord to let for occupation only by such persons.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman add that the definition in the English statute does not go as wide as the Under-Secretary suggested and certainly does not cover any house occupied by an elderly person?

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. That was another red herring. The Under-Secretary was distributing red herrings on Second Reading and no doubt he will try to do so in Committee. That is why I am sticking to the point.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Millan: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to develop my argument. The questions of sheltered housing and the disabled are important. I wish that we could get amendments, but I am not dealing with them at the moment. I am dealing with the particular concession. The wording I have read from paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1980 was the wording inserted as a concession. It was the amendment moved and put into the English Bill at the last minute. It states

"(a) that the dwelling-house is designed or specially adaped for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and
(b) that it is the practice of the landlord to let it only for occupation by such persons."

I would have liked that to be a wider definition. In the proposed new section 3A in the Bill before us, there is a definition that is more restrictive because it contains further words. It says
This section applies to a dwelling-house which has facilities which are substantially


different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house.
These words do not appear in the Housing Act 1980. They were not part of the wording of the concession that was made. The Bill before us adds:
and which has been designed or adapted for occuption by an elderly person
This follows, with slight changes, the English definition. It then goes on to say:
whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house.
That is another restriction. Admittedly, it leaves out the part of the English Act stating
that it is the practice of the landlord to let it only for occupation by such persons.
That is not a restriction that would worry the Opposition. That definition would meet the point for example of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The kind of houses about which he and I are concerned are let for occupation only by elderly persons but are not covered by the concession in the Bill. What we have in the Bill are two further restrictions on the concession compared with the English Act. First, the houses must have facilities
which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house
and, secondly, the elderly person must be one
whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling house
It does not require a great deal of perspicacity to see that this is a much more restrictive definition.
There was much argument during the Committee stage of the principal Act about these definitions and a considerable amount of confusion was caused. The English housing Act was drawn in ways so different from the Scottish legislation that it was very difficult at the end of the day to understand where each had got to. There is, however, no doubt in my mind that the definition in the Bill before us today is bound to be more restrictive than the definition that appears in the Housing Act 1980.
This is where the significance of the figures of 6,000 and 220,000 enter the argument. That is not a reference to existing sheltered housing. Those houses are excluded already in England, Scotland

and Wales. I am talking of the numbers excluded by this Bill compared with the numbers excluded by what is meant to be the similar provision, namely, paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1980. This matter emerged only in the House of Lords debate. I am grateful to the Members of the other place who managed to extract the information. It is on that basis that we are told that the numbers in Scotland will be only 6,000 compared with 220,000 in England and Wales. It has nothing to do with the existing number of sheltered houses.

There is no doubt that if this Bill contained exactly the same wording as the English Bill the figure of 6,000 would become considerably greater. We would then bring within the scope of legislation houses which, I understand, are clearly within the scope of the English legislation,
designed or specially adapted for occupation by an elderly person

but which do not necessarily have facilities substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling house and which are not occupied by persons who have special needs for particular kinds of accommodation. In other words, the generality of old person's provision of housing in Scotland is a group of housing consisting of small houses which may have no special facilities, no call service and no wardens but which are neverthless designed for elderly persons and let only to elderly persons by the local council as part of its normal letting operation. That is the kind of house that the Opposition believe should be included in the Bill. That is the kind of house now included in the Housing Act 1980. It is because these definitions are so entirely—

Mr. Rifkind: Mr. Rifkindrose—

Mr. Milian: The Minister will have a chance to answer in a minute. It is because there are these considerable differences in the definition that we claim that we should be put on all fours with England and Wales and that a promise has not been discharged.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the group of houses to which he referred and which he thinks will be covered in England but not in Scotland are to be found


in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the English Act and were already in the English Act before any concessions were made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. The houses included in paragraph 4 are precisely not the kind of houses to which I have referred. The houses included in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the English Act are houses which are let
for occupation by persons of pensionable age and a social service or special facilities are provided in close proximity to the group of dwelling-houses for the only or main purpose of assisting those persons.
I am not talking about these houses. I am talking of small houses let to elderly persons in Scotland where no social services or special facilities are provided. The only factor that distinguishes these houses from other local authority houses is that they are houses of a size which are suitable for elderly persons and those which it is the practice of the local authority to let only to elderly persons. These houses are covered in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the English Act.
These are the houses that were specifically included as a result of the concession. They are not included in the definition in the Bill before the House. If there is any doubt, and if he says that it does not make any difference to the result at the end of the day, the Minister should accept the amendments that appear on the Notice Paper. The Liberal amendment would repeat the words in the English Act. There could be no doubt about there being any difference between the English Act and the Bill.

Mr. Rifkind: Mr. Rifkindrose—

Mr. Millan: The Minister will have a chance to reply to some of these points. His last intervention was completely erroneous. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to answer some of these points later. If there is any doubt, the Liberal amendment repeats word for word the wording in the English Act.

Mr. Rifkind: Not the concession.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman says "Not the concession". I have dealt with

that point, but I am coming to it on amendments in my name in a moment. If there is any doubt, the Liberal amendment, in repeating the words in the English Act, including paragraph 5—which was the concession—means that there could be no doubt, that the wording would be exactly the same.
The effect of the amendments that I have tabled is to produce in this Bill exactly the concession put into the English Act in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1. Amendment No. 2 would remove from the Bill, by leaving out from the beginning of line 12 to "which" in line 13, the restriction that is included in the words which has facilities which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house".
That restriction was not included in the concession that was put into the English Bill as a result of negotiations. Either that restriction has an effect, or it does not. If it does not have an effect and does not alter the sense of the provision, there is no reason why we should not eliminate it. If it has an effect, as I believe it does, it must be to restrict the number of houses in Scotland covered by the concession and therefore mean that Scotland is not being treated the same as England and Wales. The words should be taken out.

Amendment No. 4 seeks to take out the words which define the person who occupies the house as
a person whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling house.

Many people living in old people's houses in Scotland have no particular special medical or social need. Their need is to occupy a house of a size suitable for their requirements. The words in the Scottish Bill do not appear in the English concession. Either they are meaningless and do not add to the provision—in which case they should be eliminated—or they have a meaning. That meaning can be only to restrict the concession. Therefore, Scotland is not put on all fours with England.

The amendment contains the words which appear in the English Act. They are
and it is the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling house for occupation by an elderly person.

If such words were not included in the Act one could argue that any house that was occupied by an elderly person should be excluded. I should like that to happen. However, I accept that that was not the concession or promise made by the Government. Therefore, I am happy to include the words in the definition. That is the invariable practice in Scotland. We are talking about small houses which have been built especially for the elderly and are let only to the elderly. The houses do not necessarily have special facilities and the elderly people who live in them do not necessarily have special needs other than the need to occupy a suitably sized house.

The other amendments under discussion are consequential and bring the Scottish provision in line with the concession in the English Act. I am not worried about what was in the legislation before the concession was made. We were promised that when the concession was made for England and Wales the same concession would be made for Scotland.

On Report the Secretary of State said:
I am glad to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall ensure that the provisions are acceptable to him."—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 815.]

That provision is not acceptable to me; nor is it acceptable to hon. Members from other parties. It is not acceptable to Members of another place, including some members of the Conservative Party. Considerable dismay, disappointment and anger was expressed when it was discovered that the wording provides a less acceptable and a more restrictive concession for Scotland than that which is provided for England and Wales.

If the Bill is allowed to go through without the Government accepting the amendment, the Secretary of State will break the solemn word he gave in the House on 7 August. The Government will break all the promises made not only by the Secretary of State but by the Leader of the House and others that Scotland would not be treated less favourably than England and Wales. We have been treated less favourably. The Secretary of State has been guilty of a breach of faith in presenting the Bill in its present form. If he did that innocently, and if when the deficiencies were pointed out he had accepted the necessary amendments, I should have no complaint.

Unfortunately, Lord Mansfield steadfastly refused to make changes. Even at this late stage I hope that the Minister will make the necessary changes and discharge the promise made by his right hon. Friend and other senior Ministers.

Mr. Rifkind: Utterly and without qualification I repudiate the suggestion that the contents of the Bill do not conform with the undertakings given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was asked about these matters by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) he replied:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has authorised me to say, as regards the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill, that he will facilitate legislation to make a change along the lines that I have announced, at the earliest convenient moment."—[Official Report, 6 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 562.]
When the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) asked my right hon. Friend the following day about these matters, my right hon. Friend replied
it is the Government's intention to produce the necessary Bill in the overspill period to give similar effect to the arrangements made yesterday in the English Housing Bill.—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol 990, c. 815.]
That is exactly what the Bill seeks to do.

Mr. David Steel: The Minister is forgetting a third quotation from the Leader of the House who, in answer to my question, said:
On the Housing Bill, it is vital that Scotland and England be treated equally in these matters."—[Official Report, 6 August 1980; Vol 990, c. 528.]

Mr. Rifkind: Our contention is that that is exactly what the Bill provides.
The Liberal amendments include two provisions. Paragraph (a) deals specifically with houses which have social service or special facilities
in close proximity to the group of dwelling-houses".
Those words are taken directly from the Housing Act. That provision was in the Housing Act before any concession was made by the Secretary of State for the Environment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any undertaking given in August. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) nods his head. We


can agree that paragraph (a) of the amendment has nothing whatever to do with the concession and the undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Steel: I hope that that is not all that the Under-Secretary of State intends to say. My ambitions are greater than his. He is trying to make the Scottish Bill as good as the English legislation. I should like to take the opportunity to make it even better.

Mr. Rifkind: We spent several months doing that earlier in the year, although the right hon. Gentleman's view of whether we succeeded might be different from mine. The Bill deals with the undertaking given in August.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment deals with the undertaking given by the Secretary of State for the Environment. We contend that the Bill provides for a similar consequence. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that he accepted that in fulfilling our undertaking it was not necessary for us to use exactly the same words. The right hon. Gentleman accepted that the Scottish Bill, for legal and procedural reasons, in many respects uses different drafting to achieve a similar effect. The fact that the wording is different from that in the English Bill does not by itself mean that the provision is different. We are interested not in whether the wording is the same but in whether a similar effect is achieved. I am glad that we are in agreement on that. The Government contend that the words have a similar effect.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton gave us his views, which were clearly critical of the Government's proposals. However, the examples that he gave are the sort that the provisions in the Bill are extending to cover. He was, in effect, describing amenity housing, a category of housing that he was responsible for introducing and which is a very desirable form of old person's housing in Scotland.
In other words, it is that sort of housing which, although it does not have a call system or a warden in occupation, has nevertheless been designed and adapted to cope with the problems of old folk. That is the category of housing that will be affected by the amendment. Surely it is significant that in Scotland

and England the number of exclusions will be doubled, although I freely accept that in Scotland the numbers are far smaller.

7 pm

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Minister said that the important thing was to look at the effect. If there are fewer of these houses in Scotland, it is equally true that Government funds will not be made available for adding to their number. Would it not be reasonable for the wording of the Act to increase the provision of housing, thus helping old people and improving the effect of which the hon. Gentleman has been speaking?

Mr. Rifkind: That may or may not be a good debating point, but it is not the undertaking that was given. The Government are being accused of not having honoured the undertaking that was given. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would have preferred us to have given a different undertaking or for us to have gone beyond the undertaking that we gave. Our concern, however, is for the undertaking that was given and whether we honoured it.

Mr. Dewar: I accept that we are interested in the consequences of the legislation. The Minister said that the number of exempted houses will be doubled both North and South of the border. That is not the relevant point. I am interested to know how many houses will be in the exempt category as a result of the amendment, and what will be caught in the same parallel exemption in England.

Mr. Rifkind: I thought that I had given the hon. Gentleman the figure. Some 6,000 to 7,000 houses will be excluded by these provisions which would not have been excluded otherwise.

Mr. Dewar: How many?

Mr. Rifkind: Both figures are being doubled. The number of houses already excluded in England is about 220,000, and they come under the sheltered housing category. Since that figure is being doubled the hon. Gentleman may now be aware of the figure he seeks.

Mr. Millan: The doubling of the figure is irrelevant. Will the Minister answer another question? If the definition in this Bill brings in an additional 6,000


houses, what would the figure be if we replaced that definition by the definition in the English Bill, as the amendments seek?

Mr. Rifkind: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would know that the Government's contention is that the consequences of the provisions are the same in each case. The answer to his question, therefore, is that the same 6,000 or 7,000 houses would be covered. The right hon. Gentleman may not accept that, but that is the Government's position.

Mr. Milian: If that is the position and the numbers are not affected, why does not the Minister simply accept the amendment?

Mr. Rifkind: There is a very simple reason which the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles accepts, which is that the drafting requirements of the Scottish Bill are in many respects different. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone else that Scottish Bills regularly require different legislative form to secure a similar effect. The right to buy is drafted in totally different ways in England and Scotland. Until now the right hon. Gentleman has never dreamt of suggesting that in order for two provisions to have a similar effect on both sides of the border they must be drafted in a similar way.

Mr. David Steel: The Minister must not put a false interpretation on my words. Of course I accept that there are occasions when the Scottish drafting must be different from the English. The English language, however, is the same north and south of the border. Surely the Under-Secretary accepts that there is a difference between the phrase "persons of pensionable age", which is the wording in the English Act, and the phrase
elderly person whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house.
That is surely a much narrower definition than simply "persons of pensionable age".

Mr. Rifkind: The question whether an elderly person means a person of pensionable age was raised by the Opposition spokesman in the other place, and that was the basis of the amendment that was accepted there. The right hon. Gentle-

man correctly points out that our Bill refers specifically to the house being a house
for occupation by an elderly person whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house.
The parallel provision in the English Act is
it is the practice of the landlord to let it only for occupation by such persons.
The interesting aspect is that amendment No. 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Craigton, which purports to introduce the English words, does not include the word "only".

Mr. Milian: That was an inadvertent omission. I intended the words to be the same.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept that that was an inadvertent omission. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles certainly includes the word "only" in his amendment. That has a similar effect, in that we are considering not just a house but one in which an elderly person is living, and not one that was simply designed or adapted for use by an elderly person although someone else may be living in it at that time.
The English Act uses restrictive terminology. It has to be a form of house that is rented only to an elderly person; and if, for example, that elderly person has died and is succeeded by someone else who is much younger and has become the tenant, that position would not be covered.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister must be forgetting the debates that took place during proceedings on the English Bill on this very word, when Ministers were at pains to explain that so restrictive an interpretation should not be put on "only" as to deprive the effect of the Bill from those cases where, because of occasional change, a house has not been let in a particular case to an elderly person.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the specific interpretation that has been placed upon that provision, but the wording itself is very narrowly constructed, and it certainly has no less and no more restrictive effect than the wording used in the Scottish provision.
The point that I fall back on is that the housing that will now be excluded is


primarily amenity housing or other houses that have been specially adapted or designed for the needs of the elderly. By "amenity housing" we mean housing with full house heating, grab rails and adjustments to power points and work-tops with various other adaptations made to meet the specific needs of elderly persons. That is an important category, which now comes within the terms of the provision.
That is why we maintain without qualification or apology that the effect of our provisions is similar to the effect of the English amendment, and I therefore regret that we cannot advise the House to accept the amendments.

Mr. Dewar: This is a convoluted and difficult argument. I did not serve on the Committee on the Bill, and I therefore come to it with some diffidence. I am tempted, however, to comment on the totally unsatisfactory position into which the Minister has manoeuvred himself. If he resents charges of bad faith for the Government's failure to implement pledges solemnly given, he has an easy way out of his dilemma, based upon his own arguments. We are now in the ludicrous situation where the Minister says that his drafting is the same in intent and effect as the English drafting, yet he lays himself open to charges of duplicity because he will not follow the logic of that argument and accept the amendments.
I accept that there are many occasions when there has to be a difference in drafting between Scottish and English statutes. It would be ludicrous to say otherwise. There is no virtue in being different. One should be different only if it is necessary.
If we are attempting to achieve the same objective, the presupposition is that we should do it in the same words because we use the same language. On occasions that may be impossible because, whatever the practical effect intended, the basis of the law will be theoretically different and will require a different form of legal language. The words may have to be specifically related back to earlier clauses and phrases. However, the Minister did not argue that case in any detail. He said that we need different

I accept that the words that he has taken are those that appear in section 4(4) of the Act. But, as he has been careful to point out, that deals with a different business altogether. It deals with categories of sheltered and special housing that were included in the Bill before the argument began. I do not see that there is any necessity, in terms of a draftsman's skill or a lawyer's ability to interpret or comprehend, to repeat parrot-wise that form of words. There is no essential continuity or link that I can follow. I am clear that the Minister produced no substantial argument about why we are bound to that form of words in terms of legal interpretation and continuity.
The Minister said that the Government wanted to achieve the same effect as the English amendment. There seems to be a prima facie case for saying "Take the same form of words so that people can comprehend the matter in the same way north and south of the border." There has been no argument designed to show why that is impossible in relation to the legal niceties of drafting legislation. The Minister may think that I am being hypocritically solicitous about his reputation, but I am not. The amending legislation has been brought forward in almost world record time. It is unusual to have, in the same Session of Parliament, separate legislation to amend an Act that has only recently reached the statute book. Those unusual circumstances are being dictated by a pledge which, I accept, the Minister is anxious to honour. I accept that, at the beginning of this process, he intended to honour the pledge.
If there is confusion and difficulty, the simple way to deal with it is to accept the amendments. The Minister would then have a reputation for being a reasonable man, which is not necessarily a handicap in politics. That would mark him out from many of his colleagues in the public gaze. He has not produced a single substantial argument other than the bland phrase that it does not make drafting sense. Given that the effect is exactly the same as that which he is trying to achieve, he has not explained why the natural presumption that we should use the same words is displaced. If the Minister cannot adduce


that argument he must accept that there will be dark suspicions, perhaps natural, both in the minds of Opposition parties and in the minds of many people in Scotland. They will see it as a short measure and an attempt to circumvent the pledges that were given. They will say that we can argue or dance on the head of a pin about the various forms of words but, as the Minister said, it is the consequences that matter. If we do not have the same form of words, people will look at the consequences and the enormous disparity—even allowing for every population formula that may be employed—that has resulted from the figures given by the Minister and will be left with the suspicion that we are in some way being cheated.

I agree that sometimes it is difficult to interpret the figures because, as I understand the Minister's case—although I had some difficulty in following it—a disparity is caused by the bad record of Scottish local authorities in creating this sort of accommodation. I am not sure that the Minister has made that case. We have a much larger public sector in Scotland, which makes it even more difficult to comprehend the disparity. It leaves open the suspicion that in some way the formula itself, or perhaps the way in which it is interpreted by the Secretary of State and his colleagues, is not putting Scotland on an equal footing with England and Wales. If a concession is made it should be made graciously. It should be seen to be done in an adequate and fair manner. Clearly, that is not happening. In the absence of a substantial argument about the drafting amendments—or drafting imperatives—which rules out the use of the same phraseology as that used in the Act, we are entitled to continue to harbour our suspicions and to press the amendment.

Mr. Rifkind: As it is the Committee stage of the Bill, I think it would be helpful if I were to answer that specific point now. The hon. Gentleman asked why, if it is to have the same effect, we should adopt the wording in the English Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when we came to drafting the amending Bill we did not start from scratch and ask in what way we could avoid accepting the under-

taking given by my right hon. Friend. In this case we were able to use wording that already existed in a different context in the Act and that the House had approved.
The hon. Gentleman indicated that the provisions of section 4(4), which uses exactly the wording in the present Bill, applied to different houses. They do not apply to different houses in relation to the elderly. They apply to the same houses, but, instead of providing a right of refusal, they provide only for a right to insist on a pre-emption clause. The same houses are affected. The hon. Gentleman must take that point on board. If we had chosen to use different wording simply for the cosmetic purpose of showing that the effect would be exactly the same, unless we made a number of other amendments—

Mr. Milan: The Minister should have made other amendments.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman says that we should have made other amendments. If they had a practical purpose he would be right. If they are simply for a cosmetic purpose, to show that our wording is the same as the English wording, it is pointless. We would then have had to amend other parts of an Act that has been approved by the House. Section 4(4) of the Act gives the right of pre-emption for exactly the sort of houses that the Bill extends into a right of refusal. Unless we have two different sets of definitions in two different Bills—which would have caused confusion—it would have been necessary to make further amendments. I accept that we could have done that, but there was no point in doing so. We were satisfied that the wording of the Bill had the same consequences, and excluded from the right to buy the houses covered by the undertaking. It is on that basis that the wording was used.

Mr. Milian: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) used the word "cheating". The Government are cheating—it is as simple as that. There is absolutely no question that the wording in the Scottish Bill does not have the same effect as the wording in the English Bill. Discussion about the definition of amenity housing is irrelevant. There is no question of the concession in


Scotland being confined to certain definitions of amenity housing. The wording in section 4(4) of the Act is completely irrelevant also. It is a simple proposition. A certain form of wording was included in the English Bill as a concession following defeats in another place and various negotiations. The Government said that they would, by amending legislation put an equivalent provision into the Scottish Bill. They have not done so. They have cheated. The effect of the Scottish concession is much less generous than the effect of the English concession.
If the wording were to be changed to make it the same as the English concession, the number of houses that would be excluded from the automatic right to buy would be considerably increased beyond the 6,000 covered by the Bill. The Minister knows that, but he will not give a straight answer. I asked him whether the numbers would be increased. He introduced irrelevancies about the definitions of amenity housing. This is a more restrictive definition, and the Government have cheated. Obviously, they will not change their minds now. Incidentally, if the Secretary of State had any respect for the House, and as he gave the pledge, he would have dealt with this matter himself instead of leaving it to the Under-Secretary who, sophistically speaking, is much more adept than the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State ought to explain why he has cheated on the solemn undertaking that he gave to the House.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It is a matter of regret that it is only at this late stage that section 4 (4) has been introduced into the discussion, because it appears to have some relevance in legalistic terms. The Under-Secretary is normally quite reasonable, but what he says when he argues as a lawyer with two other lawyers is beyond me.
I want to make sure that I understood the Minister correctly. He said quite specifically that the Bill means that an additional 6,000 houses in Scotland will be exempt. I am concerned about the mechanics for local authorities to get around that. That is what disturbs me. A local authority can say "You can buy that house" because some authorities

want to sell off as many houses as possible.

Mr. Rifkind: What we are talking about is exclusion from the right to buy. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct that if a local authority wishes to sell and a tenant wishes to buy, nothing in the Bill will prevent that from happening. Indeed, that applies to this Bill and to the English Act.

Mr. Brown: I do not want to get involved in the argument about the English Act. An undertaking was given which, as I understand it, had the effect of excluding more houses. If houses are excluded, the tenant has no right. The Minister has said that if the tenant wants to buy a house and the authority wants to sell, that should be allowed. That is not my idea of a concession. The houses already covered by the Bill are excluded from sale. I have the feeling that we are getting worked up about a concession which is not a concession, given that the tenant wants to buy and the authority wants to sell.
I should like to know where the 6,000 houses are located. How was that figure arrived at? Perhaps one of the reasons why the Bill is different is that the Minister suspects that every Labour-controlled authority in Scotland will abuse whatever concessions have been made. He has repeated that view time and again. I want the retention of these houses, particularly houses for the elderly. I am convinced that this is socially desirable, even in the context of the policy of selling other council houses. The Minister, in attempting to justify his case, has not made clear whether this is a concession.
Secondly, if a tenant wants to buy and a local authority wants to sell, this concession is meaningless.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is anxious to know where the houses are. Rather than go through the long list, I refer him to the Scottish housing statistics published by the Scottish Development Department for the third quarter of 1979. Page 35 gives a list of all the amenity housing, where it is and in which district it can be found.

Mr. David Steel: I should like to reply to the debate on amendment No. 1. I entirely accept that paragraph (a) is not


related to the concession which the Government undertook to introduce. It is an attempt to improve the Bill while we are legislating. Therefore, I shall not pursue that argument further.
I am concerned that there is a danger that we shall end with an air of bad feeling and bad faith after the Government have gone to the effort of introducing a special Bill to meet the point that was raised. Having gone to that effort, they might have gone to the effort of getting it absolutely right so that they could satisfy hon. Members that it was correct. I do not believe that it is. Despite the Under-Secretary saying time and again "You must believe that black is white because I say it is", I am not convinced. Therefore, I want to make one last desperate attempt to persuade the Minister that he may be wrong.
I approach the matter in a different way, and think in particular of a group of four houses in my constituency which were built a few years ago in two semidetached groups as part of the housing scheme. They were modern houses which were built specifically by the local authority with the needs of the elderly in mind. However, they do not have the facilities which the Under-Secretary mentioned, such as grab rails and all the rest. They are ordinary houses that are rented to the elderly and designed for the elderly in order to supply the needs of a small town.
If one pictures those houses and looks at the definitions, I have no doubt at all that under the English Act those houses would be exempt from the right to purchase because they are dwelling houses
designed for occupation … by persons of pensionable age

and it is the practice of the landlord to let them only for occupation by such persons. I am in no doubt that, were these four houses in England, they would be exempt from the right to purchase under the legislation approved by this House.

However, if we take the same group of houses and apply the wording which the Under-Secretary is inviting us to accept, they must be dwelling houses which have
facilities which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house".

I cannot say that the houses are substantially different. They are just smaller. They were designed to serve the community. In addition, they must have been
designed or adapted for occupation by an elderly person whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house".

Again I cannot say that the tenants are people whose special needs require accommodation of that kind. The houses happen to be economic, and they were designed to meet the needs of elderly people. However, they are not special

I am absolutely convinced that those houses are exempt under the English legislation but not under the Scottish legislation. That is the case which the Minister must answer. So far he has failed to do so. Unless he can provide an answer, I invite the Committee to vote for my amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 107, Noes 135.

Division No. 488]
AYES
[7.30 pm


Adams, Allen
Dalyell, Tam
George, Bruce


Alton, David
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Golding, John


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bradley, Tom
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dewar, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Dixon, Donald
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dormand, Jack
Home Robertson, John


Buchan, Norman
Dubs, Alfred
Homewood, William


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hooley, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Canavan, Dennis
Eastham, Ken
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Carmichael, Nell
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lamble, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lamborn, Harry


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Evans, John (Newton)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Ewing, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Litherland, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Foster, Derek
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Foulkes, George
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)




Mabon, Rt Hon Dr. J. Dickson
Parry, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


McCartney, Hugh
Pavitt, Laurie
Stoddart, David


McKelvey, William
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merloneth)


Maclennan, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McTaggart, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Robertson, George
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Maxton, John
Rooker, J. W.
Welsh, Michael


Maynard, Miss Joan
Roper, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Millen, Rt Hon Bruce
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Silverman, Julius
Woolmer, Kenneth


Morton, George
Skinner, Dennis



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Soley, Clive
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


O'Neill, Martin
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. David Penhaligon




NOES


Ancram, Michael
Grist, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Arnold, Tom
Grylls, Michael
Needham, Richard


Aspinwall, Jack
Gummer, John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm & Ew'll)
Neubert, Michael


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hannam, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hastings, Stephen
Parris, Matthew


Berry, Hon Anthony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Best, Keith
Hawksley, Warren
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Biggs-Davison, John
Heddle, John
Proctor, K Harvey


Blackburn, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rhodes James, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hooson, Tom
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bright, Graham
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Roberts. Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brinton, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossl, Hugh


Brown, Michael (Grigg & Sc'thorpe)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rost, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lang, Ian
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Buck, Antony
Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, T. H. H.


Budgen, Nick
Lee, John
Speed, Keith


Bulmer, Esmond
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence, John


Burden, Sir Frederick
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Butcher, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Loveridge, John
Squire, Robin


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chapman, Sydney
McQuarrie, Albert
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Major, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Colvin, Michael
Marland, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Cope, John
Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Donald


Corrie, John
Mates, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Mather, Carol
Wakeham, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Mawby, Ray
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Dover, Denshore
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Dykes, Hugh
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ward, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Farr, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Wheeler, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wickenden, Keith


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Wolfson, Mark


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Moate, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moore, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)



Gow, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Sir Raymond
Murphy, Christopher
Lord James-Douglas Hamilton and


Greenway, Harry
Myles, David
Mr. David Waddington


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to "which" in line 13.—[Mr. Milian]

Question put, That the amendment be

The Committee divide: Ayes 105, Noes 134.

Division No. 489]
AYES
7.38 pm


Adams, Allen
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Carmichael, Neil


Alton, David
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Buchan, Norman
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Beich, A. J.
Campbell, Ian
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)


Bradley, Tom
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Cryer, Bob


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Canavan, Dennis
Cunliffe, Lawrence




Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamble, David
Robertson, George


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lamborn, Harry
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Rooker, J. W.


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roper, John


Dixon, Donald
Litherland, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dormand, Jack
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rowlands, Ted


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr. J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Hugh
Soley, Clive


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey, William
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McTaggart, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Stoddart, David


Ewing, Harry
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foster, Derek
Maxton, John
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Foulkes, George
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


George, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tinn, James


Golding, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Welsh, Michael


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wigley, Dafydd


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Haynes, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Parry, Robert
Woolmer, Kenneth


Home Robertson, John
Pavitt, Laurie



Homewood, William
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooley, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Joseph Dean and


John, Brynmor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Mr. George Morton


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)





NOES


Ancram, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)
Myles, David


Arnold, Tom
Grist, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Aspinwall, Jack
Grylls, Michael
Needham, Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm & Ew'll)
Neubert, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hannam, John
Parris, Matthew


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner


Best, Keith
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawksley, Warren
Proctor, K Harvey


Blackburn, John
Heddle, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hooson, Tom
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bright, Graham
Howell, Ralph (Nods Norfolk)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brinton, Tim
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rossl, Hugh


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rost, Peter


Brown, Michael (Grigg & Sc'thorpe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lamont, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Buck, Antony
Lang, Ian
Speed, Keith


Budgen, Nick
Lawrence, Ivan
Spence, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Lee, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Butcher, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stainton, Keith


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Chapman, Sydney
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Clegg, Sir Walter
McQuarrie, Albert
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Colvin, Michael
Major, John
Thompson, Donald


Cope, John
Marland, Paul
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)


Corrie, John
Marlow, Tony
Waddington, David


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Mates, Michael
Wakeham, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Mather, Carol
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Dover, Denshore
Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Dykes, Hugh
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Ward, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Farr, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wheeler, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Wickenden, Keith


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wolfson, Mark


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger
Younger, Rt Hon George


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Moore, John



Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Lord James-Douglas Hamilton and


Greenway, Harry
Murphy, Christopher
Mr. Tony Newton

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Milian: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 29 after "shall" insert
unless it serves a notice of refusal under section 3 of this Act
This is to some extent a probing amendment, but it seemed to me that there was perhaps a deficiency in the Bill as drafted.
Subsection (6) of proposed new section 3A provides that where the Secretary of State takes the view that a house is not excluded from the right to buy,
the landlord shall serve on the tenant an offer to sell",
but the landlord may have the right to refuse under section 3 of the original Act as well, as far as 1 can see. In other words, new section 3A does not completely supplant section 3 of the Act. It can be done either under section 3 of the Act or under the new section 3A that will appear if the Bill is passed. it seemed to me that these were exclusive; the one did not supplant the other. Therefore, the landlord may have a legitimate reason, even if he is turned down by the Secretary of State under this clause, to refuse on grounds already established in the principal Act. It may be that the wording, in some way which is not clear to me, covers that eventuality. But, on first reading, it did not seem to cover it. The purpose of the amendment is to make that clear.

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) that the amendment is unnecessary. At the bottom of page 1 of the Bill he will see that the new exclusion applies only:
(2) Where an application to purchase a dwelling-house is served on a landlord and it appears to the landlord that—

(a) the dwelling-house is one to which this section applies; and
(b) the tenant would, apart from this section, have a right under section 1 of this Act to purchase the dwelling-house".

If the landlord believes that he would be entitled to refuse anyway, it would be a waste of time to use the procedures in the Bill. The Bill specifically provides that these procedures should be used only if, but for the Bill, there would be a right to buy. Therefore, the circumstance to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention would not come about for that reason. Even if that provision did

not exist in those words, I am advised that it would be implicit in the terms of the Bill. If there were a statutory right on the part of the landlord to refuse the application, he could do that even on the existing wording.

Mr. Milan: Obviously I do not want to press the amendment. I find the second argument rather more convincing than the first, if there is an implicit right to do it. The first argument is not absolutely valid because the landlord, for not particularly good reasons perhaps, might act under the new clause 3A when he could equally well act under section 3, in which case, unless there is some power of refusal under the existing section 3, he would have excluded his right, as it were, to refuse under section 3. That might not be very sensible. If he has the right anyway under section 3, I dare say that he could use it; but if he acts under clause 3A he should not be denied the right to refuse under section 3 as well. As the Minister has said that that is covered, at least implicitly if not explicitly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'one month' and insert ' six weeks '.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we shall take amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'one month' and insert 'six weeks'.

Mr. Robertson: The purpose of these amendments is to change the new additional time limits which have been built into the amending legislation when the Secretary of State refuses the local authority's application to exclude the appropriate house from the right to buy.
In the event of the Secretary of State refusing consent, the authority has possibly two months, assuming application is made immediately on receipt of the application on day one without any scrutiny by the authority, down to a minimum period of one month if delays in the processing of the application to the Secretary of State take place. The unexpired period is of negligible proportions. Therefore, it is conceivable that a local authority would have to process an application


to buy a property within only one month when the time limit in section 2(2) is for a period of two months.
Clearly circumstances created by the authority may lead to a delay. On the other hand, delays could take place out-with the control of the authority. Delay could take place within the Secretary of State's department. Verification could be required and it might be necessary for further inquiries to be made over and above the information supplied in the application form. Such delays could be caused both within and without the control of the housing authority. Delays could take place in the Secretary of State's Department or involuntarily within the local authority.
It seems strange that, the Government having established and stuck to the period of two months—indeed, during the first year of operation of the Act local authorities have three months within which to process applications—local authorities, through no fault of their own, may be left with only one month from the date of the Secretary of State's final refusal to carry out the whole processing of a house sale.
The Opposition suggest that the period should be extended from one month to six weeks. That is clearly not ideal. We are trying to strike a compromise to allow local authorities a degree of flexibility, especially in circumstances where delays could be outwith their control.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I should like to pursue the point that I was making earlier because it relates to the time factor. The Under-Secretary of State referred me to the housing statistics. I presume that the definitions must be acceptable to the Secretary of State. In other words, they must be compiled not on the say so of the district authority. Therefore, about 6,000 houses are known and identified and there should not be any cause for delay in establishing that category of house.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) relates to some procedural or administrative difficulty which should not be concerned with the subject matter. I do not know whether I am right about that. To go back to what the Minister said earlier, if a tenant wants to buy and the local authority wants to sell, surely that is the end of the matter and the Secretary of

ally designed houses. Given that these will be well-defined categories of houses, does the Minister see any difficulty in meeting State does not come into it. If the procedure is to be the same as for any other house—not a specially designed house—there is no problem. I agree 100 per cent with putting barriers on the sale of speci-the timeetable set out in the Bill?

Mr. Rifkind: In response to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), I should point out that the figures in the housing statistics are not the grand total of all the houses likely to be affected by this provision. The figures in the statistics relate to what are considered to be a specific category of amenity housing which local authorities have indicated in their housing returns to the Scottish Office are within their boundaries. In addition to these recognised amenity houses, individual houses or groups of houses, while not being amenity houses in the normal sense of the word, come within these provisions. Obviously we are dependent on the information given to us by local authorities regarding their housing stocks. The largest single group of houses covered by the Bill will be the amenity houses, of which there are approximately 6,000. There may be others of which we are not aware which take the total above that figure.

Mr. Brown: I do not know why I should be the one who always tries to help the Minister. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is a minimum of 6,000 houses but that it could be more—a number that we do not know?

8 pm

Mr. Rifkind: That is exactly right. Clearly, any house that comes into the category of amenity housing, as it is normally understood in Scotland, would come within the category. There are almost certainly other houses which, for example, although not originally designed for old folk, have been specially adapted for a particular tenant or for individual tenants, and which have not been included in the returns of housing authorities over the years. Having said that, however, it will not be a lengthy process to identify whether a particular house comes into the category.
We gave serious consideration to whether it would be reasonable to accept


the amendment. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will appreciate that, unlike the English Act, the Scottish Act lays down specific periods of time for dealing with specific matters involved in the process of applications. The figure of one month is a period that appears in certain other respects in the Act. I think that the time provided is reasonable, because here we are talking of section 2(2) of the parent Act. That provides for a period of three months in the first year and two months thereafter to give an offer to sell. The hon. Gentleman will see in the Bill, under subsection (6) on page 2 that
the landlord shall serve on the tenant an otter to sell under section 2(2) of this Act—within the period mentioned in the said section 2(2)"—
which is the three months or the two months, depending on whether it is the first year—
'or where the unexpired portion of that period is less than one month".
In other words where more than two months has already expired from the date when the tenant made his application, there will be allowed a further month for that period to be completed.
Therefore, the house about which we are talking will be one which, perfectly obviously, will come within the category covered by the Bill. If it is obvious to the local authority that this might be a marginal case, clearly, in its own interests, it will have dealt with the other aspects of processing the application just in case the Secretary of State refuses it, in order to comply with the time scale.
Clearly, the question of four weeks or six weeks will not make much difference anyway, if there were any serious problem. Even that period is open to extension by negotiation with the tenant. All that this period which is laid down means is that if it has not been completed within that period the tenant, if he was dissatisfied, could go to the Lands Tribunal. If the local authority said to the tenant "We are having a bit of a problem. It may take us a few more days or a couple of weeks", clearly, if the tenant had no reason to believe that it was a deliberate delaying tactic, he would be happy to agree to that.
While I freely accept the motives behind the amendment, I hope that, on that

basis, the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is unnecessary.

Mr. George Robertson: In discussing this matter in a rational and reasonable context, because we are talking about something of technical importance, one finds that it goes somewhat beyond a technical interpretation. We are dealing here, after the Bill leaves this House and Parliament, with people who will have to handle the mechanics in conveyancing offices and local authority departments. What worries me is that it is still possible for the Minister to impose an unreasonable timetable upon authorities.
We debated the time limits at enormous length in Committee. The Opposition's amendments, which would have extended the time limit available for local authorities to respond to applications, were ruthlessly voted down by the Government. They have made one concession to the arguments put forward, which applies only to the first year, to the extension during the year ending October 1981 to a period of three months from the date of application. Indeed, as the Minister says, that would mean a delay of two months being necessary before the provisions of paragraph (b) come into effect. But thereafter, after October of next year, clearly a local authority could be left with only one month in which to handle all the conveyancing and other aspects involved in the matter.
If we discount for a moment any possibility of deliberate delay being involved, there are likely to be marginal cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) has just raised indirectly the figures quoted by the Minister in the last but one group of amendments. It is freely asserted that it is only a minimum of 6,000 houses which will be affected, but clearly, above that figure, there will be marginal cases. It is possible that in order to satisfy themselves that a case is worth taking to the Secretary of State, inquiries may have to be made by local authorities. Very few other of the steps necessary to be taken by the local authority can be taken until the Secretary of State has decided one way or the other. The local authority can be put in the position of having to deal with the whole process in the one month left after the Secretary of State refuses to grant the permission.
Given the Minister's protestations about local authority manpower, I think that he would hardly expect local authorities, on the supposition that the case was going to be agreed or refused, to make contingency plans on either side in order to deal with individual applications. There may be a number of applications, even only a small number, but I believe that an unreasonable constraint is being put on local authorities.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that after the first year local authorities will have only two months from the date of application to make the offer to sell. As they can use the first month of that two-month period to decide whether there is a right to buy—not just in these cases but in any case—in practice they will have only about one month in some areas of policy to do the general processing of applications.
The other point that I wish to stress is that it is only after that period that the tenant has a right to go to the Lands Tribunal. If there is a genuine problem of delay, I have not the slightest doubt that the local authority will say to the tenant "It will take an extra couple of weeks". If the tenant knows that and has no reason to doubt the sincerity of that proposition, of course he will not waste time and trouble going to the Lands Tribunal if waiting only an extra week or an extra fortnight will solve the problem.
What we are concerned with, unfortunately—and some Labour Members have repeated this—is that Opposition Members have said that they will seek to use all the delaying powers that the Act provides to prevent houses being sold. We have to take that into account in laying down the tenants' rights. But if there is genuine good faith on the part of the local authority, it would be a very extraordinary tenant who would wish to spend a lot of time going to a tribunal unnecessarily.

Mr. Robertson: One would have thought that it would be an extraordinary Minister who would be closing loopholes which he did not believe existed. There seems to be a mutual feeling of distrust here. The Minister is saying "If we leave a loophole, people will exploit it." Who is to blame a tenant who says to a local

authority "You may say that the Secretary of State for Scotland, a Conservative to boot, has held my application for a month, but I am not satisfied with that. I believe that you are delaying unnecessarily" and he then imposes upon the local authority that constraint? We may be talking here about the marginal case, but that can often be the case that creates serious problems for the local authority quite unnecessarily and unfairly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

However, I can see that there is no possibility of persuading the Government this evening that any amendment to the Bill should be accepted, whatever its merits. In that spirit, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

MINOR AMENDMENTS

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendments No. 11 in page 2, line 40, leave out from first be 'to subject' in line 41.
The purpose of the amendment is to exclude from the clause the words
and shall be deemed always to have been
This is a remarkable amendment. To the outside world, from the large assembled groups on the seats in this Chamber, it may not appear that we are discussing something of major significance, but there is little doubt that that simple phrase, slipped into the clause, has mind-boggling implications.
The Government have brought forward a principal and an amending Bill in the same Session of Parliament. It is now in clause 2. It relates only to clause 2 and not to the previous clause, which was the clause that led to the Bill coming forward so hastily. But in relation to clause 2 and a number of issues within it, it will not apply simply from the date of Royal Assent to this legislation but will be deemed to have always been in existence. Clearly, if the principle is to be adopted that the Government can legislate for all times prior to an Act of Parliament getting on the statute book, some very interesting situations are likely to develop.
There are obvious constitutional implications for Parliament involved in this matter. It will be interesting to see whether the Government and their inbuilt silent majority will start to use this form of words as a precedent.
For example, will a criminal justice Bill for Scotland include measures that are accompanied by the provision that they should be deemed always to have been subject to legislation? The House of Commons and the country would consider that to be intolerable. There is no reason why we should accept the principle that the Government can legislate for their mistakes and legislate that the mistakes were never made in the first place.
Those responsible for perpetrating these errors in the flood of legislation that has passed through the House of Commons this Session appear to be trying retrospectively to wipe the slate clean. If the Bill becomes an Act, it will be deemed that none of the mistakes was made in the first place. I am sure that my hon. Friends agree that there are dangerous implications. These details may be technical and some of the corrections are minute. However, one of them figured prominently in the Minister's opening speech on Second Reading, so it can hardly be described as being of negligible importance. By the phrase in question, the correction shall be deemed always to have been part of the legislation.
It may have seemed like a good trick by those who draft legislation to insert this provision and to ensure that the mistakes that were not noticed until this stage would cease to exist. I hope that the Minister will give us a convincing explanation and reassure the House in general terms that we are not likely to see this form of words in any future legislation.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) advanced an eloquent case against the principle of retrospection. I entirely agree with his case. It would be undesirable and unacceptable for any Government to seek to act in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described in his eloquent remarks.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that the retrospective nature of clause 2 applies merely to the

provisions of the clause. He will remember that his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) asked for an assurance from the Government that no elderly folks' housing would be excluded and that from the passage of the Act it should be ensured that no housing coming within the category of the amending Bill would be sold in the interim. We have sought to meet the Opposition's requirements. That is why clause 2(a) appears.
I turn to paragraphs (b), (c) (d) and (e). Again, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. It so happens that the provisions in the original statute do not come into effect until 1 December. Therefore, it is unlikely that there can be any retrospective element.
The hon. Gentleman has indicated his views on paragraph (f). He will be interested to know that the normal presumption against retrospection does not apply when the provision in question is purely declaratory. I refer the hon. Gentleman to "Craies: Statute Law", which is an authoritative statement on these matters. On page 395 it is stated:
Where an Act is in its nature declaratory, the presumption against construing it retrospectively is inapplicable
The paragraph merely declares what, in the Government's view and in the view of all those who have given legal advice on the matter, is the existing law. It is declaring the existing law and not changing the law. Therefore, the presumption against retrospection is inapplicable.
The hon. Gentleman is a fair-minded man. I am sure that in the circumstances that I have outlined he will recognise that the heinous charge that he was tempted to make against the Government is inappropriate.

Mr. George Robertson: Would that there were some supreme court in which the Minister's eloquent submissions could be tested. I am a humble trained economist. I did not even catch the title of the authority from which the Minister quoted. My breath has been taken away. There are deep implications that others, on reading the account of this debate tomorrow, may pursue at greater and more entertaining length.
I accept for the moment the Minister's assurance that the provisions in paragraphs (a) to (e) appear as a result of the


insistence by the Opposition that there should be no gap during which time there could be exploitation leading to the sale of houses covered by this minor concession. If my legal friends had been present there might have been a challenge on paragraph (f). However, at this stage of the evening that challenge can hardly come from me. I am neither qualified nor inclined to do so. Therefore, I have little option at this stage but to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (f).
This is a matter that has already taken the time of the House earlier in the evening. The effect of the amendment would be to leave out paragraph (f), the Government's renewed definition of the words "heritable proprietor" which figured in the original Act and which have now become such a major issue.
This will be an interesting debate. The Minister's introductory statements on Second Reading seemed mutually contradictory. He said that there was some doubt whether the original definition of "heritable proprietor" covered the position of local authorities in relation to the majority of their council housing stock. He then said that the Government were entirely satisfied that the Act was not defective. He said that there was independent legal advice available to the Government indicating that it was not defective and could not be interpreted as being defective. He said that the Government were therefore satisfied with the original drafting.
However, the Minister performed a somersault. He said that there are those who will exploit any shred of doubt. Having excluded the possibility of any shred of doubt, the Minister said that there are those who will exploit any nonexistent shred of doubt. Therefore, the Government, so he argued, must legislate to secure that there is not a vestige of the doubt that should not have existed in the first place, and which the Government are convinced did not exist in the first place.
We are seeing some interesting examples of legislation upon legislation. They

are coming in fast and furious. Their purpose is to block loopholes that the Government are convinced do not exist. This would be of almost humorous proportions if public expenditure consequences were not involved in discussing these issues. This is the second House of Parliament that has debated the issue. The other House has debated it at considerable length already. I dare say it is possible for the Treasury mandarins to cost out to the last penny of the PSBR the inflation that is directly attributable to the man-hours spent by the Scottish Office in putting this measure before us.
If the Minister is as convinced—he seemed to suggest that he is entirely satisfied—that the Act is not defective, it is remarkable that we are being faced with superfluous legislation to block nonexistent loopholes. Either the legislation was unnecessary in the first place, or it is a wasteful duplication of time and effort.
The Minister's authoritative statements on "heritable proprietor" have come to nothing. The Government have taken the opportunity of reinforcing their case. The arguments so eloquently and forcefully put forward were undermined during the summer, because local authorities took conflicting legal advice from a wide variety of legal experts. Indeed, the Minister rose to his present eminence from such ranks.
Conservative Members have used loopholes to great advantage in the past. Let us hope that they stick to the view that loopholes should not be exploited. Let us hope that they stick to their view that the spirit of any legislation should be respected by the Opposition and the public. Perhaps the Minister has faith in his supporters, but I have not. I am sure that many people will view the Bill as an exercise in overkill. The Government were confident that there was no loophole, but they have used an enormous sledgehammer to crack that supposedly non-existent nut. It would be to the benefit of Parliament to accept this amendment and to exclude this superfluous redefinition of "veritable proprietor."

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Hon. Members will not be disappointed, as I shall not speak for long. I do not wish any doubt to remain in the minds of Labour groups


as to which one attracted the noble Lord's compliment. Did Dundee or Glasgow find the loophole and exploit it? The Minister said earlier that there was no refusal in terms of Glasgow. I assume that he will be in touch with Glasgow to clarify that point. The date of receipt of the application has some bearing on the whole machinery. Because of the National and Local Government Officers Association, some of those applications might have been made some time ago.

Mr. Rifkind: When my noble Friend the Minister made that remark in the other place, he was referring to Dundee district council. At that time, that was the only authority to have made any issue out of the situation. The letter sent by Glasgow followed later. When Dundee district council announced its intention to delay sales on that basis, the chairman of Glasgow's housing committee said that he and all the other Labour groups in Scotland were aware of that point. They decided that it would be stupid to press the point. Subsequently, they chose to act in what they accepted was a stupid way.

Mr. Brown: I do not want to give the Minister a third chance to use the word "stupid". My constituents are alert and on the ball. I have already had a letter from a constituent enclosing a copy of the letter sent to him. I received that letter last week and the debate took place on 29 October. Therefore, I am not sure that the Minister is right. I think that Glasgow issued the notices before the debate took place.

Mr. Rifkind: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman received such a letter. In Committee, he said that none of his constituents would be interested in buying their homes. At least that is not true. Dundee district council was the first local authority to try to make an issue out of this. I understand that when the council first sought legal advice it was told that there was no loophole. The council was unhappy with that advice and sought further advice from a legal person who happened to be a Labour councillor in the Lothian region. He gave slightly different advice.
Important advice was given to Cunninghame home district council by Professor Halliday, the author of a textbook

on conveyancing. He is Scotland's foremost expert in such matters. He said:
When one considers the objective of section I of the 1980 Act clearly it can only apply to a body which has power to grant a conveyance upon sale of a dwelling house but it would be a difficult and probably a malign construction of the section to hold that it excluded a body which could grant such a Disposition deducing its title. A 'heritable proprietor' is a person who is the proprietor of land and that nowadays applies both to a person who has a completed title and a person who has right to the land in the sense of Section 3 of the 1924 Act but has not yet completed title.
In Professor Halliday's view, it may be a malign interpretation to suggest that there is a loophole. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that if we were that convinced that there was no loophole there was no need to include this declaratory clause. Dundee district council, for example, has indicated that it intends to do all in its power to delay the sale of houses. If this provision were not included, it would go to the Lands Tribunal. We are confident that the Lands Tribunal would find that it was not a loophole. However. Dundee council would no doubt consider appealing to the Court of Session and perhaps to the House of Lords; although the latter might not hold the same attraction. If it chose to take such steps, there would be a considerable delay.
Although we are confident that the result would be the same, it is important that tenants should not be prevented from exercising their rights if that can be avoided. If a special Bill had been needed we should probably not have bothered. We must consider this Bill, and it made sense, therefore, to include this minor provision.

Mr. George Robertson: One would think that the Minister had never been part of the fraternity that is capable of producing contradictory statements. If the Minister believes that anybody with a vested interest, whether political, financial or otherwise, will not exploit loopholes left by careless Governments, he flies in the face of experience, especially that of his colleagues. We are not only discussing the detail of "heritable proprietors". The Government have made an issue of the fact that some district councils have exploited an almost admitted weakness in the original Act. They say that those district councils were acting


in a reprehensible fashion and that they were, in some way, betraying the interests of their electors.
When the Labour Government were in power, and before I entered the House, a Conservative-controlled council in Tameside, Manchester, used every conceivable legal mechanism, including the House of Lords, to block educational legislation that had been passed by this House. At that time, members of Tameside council were held up as paragons by members of the Conservative Party who are now in the Government.
This is not simply a question whether Professor Halliday, Mr. William Taylor or any other legal luminary gives contradictory advice. We are arguing here that it is legitimate for elected local authorities in this country to interpret the wishes of their electors and to use whatever weaknesses the Government have left in their legislation in order to further the interests of their electors. At the end of the day it will not be the judgment by Ministers of the Crown or Ministers in the Scottish Office that will condemn these individuals. The only legitimate test for this Government, as well as for Dundee and Glasgow district councils, will be through the democratic ballot box. That is how it should be.
Conservatives should remember that when Tameside council went to the people it had a pretty dusty answer from the electors because of the sort of obstruction that that council had displayed. There is a democratic process and there is an answer. It is no response by the Government to pour odium on councils that have used the weaknesses in legislation to further the interests of their own people. I have no doubt that other weaknesses in the legislation will be similarly exploited and local authorities, with the benefit of a mandate from their electors, have every right to use whatever weaknesses are left behind by a careless Government.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 13, at end add—
'(g) in section 15(1) for "paragraphs 1 to 6" substitute "paragraphs 1 to 7".'.
Here we have a real curiosity. We have a freely acknowledged error in the

Bill—an error that is quite clear and that seems to be admitted by the Government and their draftsmen. Yet this evening there is apparently no amendment tabled in the Government's name.
The Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 provides in section 15(1):
The court may, as it thinks fit, adjourn proceedings under section 14 of this Act on a ground set out in any of the paragraphs 1 to 6 of Part I of Schedule 2".
This identifies paragraphs 1 to 6 as being the areas in which an adjournment should take place. Of course, this phraseology and the sequence of numbers certainly applied to the original Bill because at that stage ground 6 in part I of schedule 2 related to anti-social tenants and the need for repossession of secure tenancies. But under the influence of persuasive arguments from the Opposition, the Government agreed in Committee to include a new ground within part I of schedule 2 providing for alternative accommodation being available. That is the new ground 6 in part I of schedule 2:
The landlord wishes to transfer the secure tenancy of the dwelling house to the spouse or former spouse of the tenant, or to a person with whom the tenant has been living as man and wife'
Therefore, the existing ground 6 became the renumbered ground 7, and clearly the intention of the Government was that the phrase we are discussing—"paragraphs 1 to 6"—should read "paragraphs 1 to 7".
Why have not the Government tabled the appropriate amendment to correct what is clearly a mistake? Had it not been for the eagle-eyed members of the Opposition in noticing the Government's mistake, those covered by ground 7, who might require recourse to the provisions of, section 15(1), might have had to wait for some indeterminate time in the next Session of Parliament before the Government got around to correcting their mistake.
I have no doubt that the Government, having taken on those retrospective provisions with which we have already dealt, and having said that they were necessary because of the duress applied by the Opposition, have realised their mistake, so why were they not willing this evening to put down an amendment? They should table such an amendment in order to bring the provisions in section 15(1) in line with what was originally agreed by us as being the intention of that part of the Bill.
We may be told that it is not mutually contradictory and, if it is an accident, it is deliberate. Those covered by ground 7 of part I, schedule 2 will be innocently left open to the possibility of not being able to exercise the rights normally available to them under section 15(1). If that is the case that the Government put forward, future legislation may depend more on the sleight of hand of the draftsmen than the eloquence of Ministers.
The Government may accept that the vigilance of the Opposition has rescued them from unwittingly placing a trap in the path of those covered by ground 7. They may accept with acclamation and thanks our contribution to strengthening their legislation, and accept the amendment.

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). The Government were well aware of the point before the eagle eye of the Opposition drew attention to it. We considered whether an amendment would be appropriate but decided that it was unnecessary.
Under summary procedure the sheriff has an inherent right to adjourn the proceedings. The hon. Gentleman was incorrect in suggesting that the provision gives the tenant a specific right. It does not. The clause is concerned with where the court can exercise its discretion to provide for an adjournment. It is arguable whether the whole of section 15(1) is necessary. The Government therefore took the view that an amendment was unnecessary.

Mr. Dewar: It is commendable that the Minister's remarks were brief, but they had no other commendable characteristic.
If we take seriously what the hon. Gentleman says, the provisions of section 15(1) are unnecessary. I do not believe that he would have taken that view if in Committee an amendment had been put down by the Opposition to that effect. His comments are specious nonsense. It is the voice of expediency, squeaking desperately through a bland exterior. It is perfectly clear that it is an attempt to avoid the minor embarrassment of asking their Lordships to accept a tidying-up amendment, which no doubt they would

pass on the nod and which would give us a reasonably readable piece of legislation.
It is manifestly unsatisfactory that a person who goes to the sheriff and who looks at his powers under paragraphs 1 to 6 of part I of schedule 2 and sees that he has a specific right of adjournal, then discovers that, if he is proceeding under paragraph 7, he has no such right. There will be all sorts of learned arguments, perhaps not in the rarefied atmosphere that the Under-Secretary used to operate in in the Court of Session, but I can imagine jobbing petitioners in the sheriff court saying with a good deal of plausibility that there is a specific power to adjourn under paragraphs 1 to 6 but there is no mention of paragraphs 1 to 7. That would suggest that Parliament had deliberately excluded paragraph 7, and there must be some significance in that. That would be a sensible point to make.
It makes a laughing stock of Parliament for the Minister to say that there is no need for the amendment. His argument is derisory. There clearly is a need for the amendment if there are not to be misunderstandings. There is a lacuna in the Act which we can fill simply by accepting the amendment and sending the Bill back to another place, where I believe that it will be dealt with expeditiously.
A mistake has been made by the draftsman, and the Under-Secretary takes responsibility for that. However, it is a simple drafting error and not a sin of great moral turpitude. We should not make a great deal of fuss about it. If the Under-Secretary admits that a mistake has been made, I shall not point the finger at him and say that it is a major political error. That would be ludicrous. However, it becomes a matter of some importance if the hon. Gentleman will not correct even a simple error such as this. That would suggest a stubborn pride and an unwillingness to make tidying-up amendments because his and his colleagues' sense of self-importance will not allow them to do it.
I do not see why the legislation of Scotland should suffer merely to save the face of the Under-Secretary who, as Under-Secretaries do, will no doubt soon pass to another place. It may even be that the hon. Gentleman will be rectifying errors in another place.
Seriously, it would be bad if the convenience of the Administration and their wish to avoid a journey back along the corridors to another place left us with a glaring drafting error and a lacuna in the measure which might be the subject of comment and which would make the system look rather silly.

Mr. Milan: I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond. He has not given us an answer so far. He has admitted that there is an error in the Bill. There should have been a consequential amendment to an amendment made to the original Bill.
There are 14 paragraphs in the first part of schedule 2, and the provision in section 15 of the original Act was meant to refer to paragraphs 1 to 7. There must be an implication that it was not meant to refer to paragraphs 8 to 14. The Under-Secretary says that it does not make any difference, but I do not believe him. There is an error and there is no reason why we should not put it right.
It is an offence to the House and to common sense for the Minister to resist the amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it. It would be absurd for us to divide the House on a triviality when the Minister knows that the amendment ought to be made.

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) takes that view, but I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. I told the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that this was not an oversight drawn to the attention of the Government by the Opposition; we had considered the point well before the matter was raised in another place. If we had thought that an amendment was necessary we would presumably have acted in that way, but we do not consider that an amendment is necessary. We consider that the sheriff already has powers of adjournal and nothing will not be possible as a consequence of the Act in its present form.

Mr. Dewar: I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary examined the Bill. Why did he allow the provision to stay in the Bill if it was redundant? When he came to the mature legal decision that the power was unnecessary, why did he

not insert a simple provision to remove the reference to paragraphs 1 to 6.
It is particularly objectionable that we have half a provision in the measure. Either we should not have the provision, or we should have it for paragraphs 1 to 7. To have it for paragraphs 1 to 6 but not paragraph 7 is surely an illogicality.

Mr. Rifkind: If we had come to the conclusion that that part of section 15 did any positive harm it would have been sensible to have it withdrawn, but we did not come to that conclusion and therefore we did not seek to amend it.

Mr. Millan: It is silly for the Under-Secretary to resist the amendment. We argued a number of these matters in Committee and he knows that in section 15 of the original Act distinctions are drawn between the grounds for possession. The distinction between paragraphs 1 to 7 and paragraphs 8 to 14 appears in subsection (2). There is a reference in subsection (1) to paragraphs 1 to 6, presumably for good reasons, but in subsection (2) the distinction is between paragraphs 1 to 7 and paragraphs 8 to 14. That is an absurdity. I do not care what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not care at what time the Government discovered that this error had been made. A consequential amendment was not made to the original Act. The Government are no doubt embarrassed that if we make an amendment tonight the Bill will have to go back to the other place to have the amendment agreed. It is drafting amendment. It is a minor inconvenience to the Government.

It is wrong in principle that the Government refuse to put right an error on the ground that it may be inconvenient because the Bill will have to go back to the Lords to have the amendment agreed. The Minister has advanced no substantial argument for not correcting the error now. I do not wish to take the matter to a Division. It is a waste of the time of the House. The Minister has no right to refuse to accept the amendment and to waste the time of the House. I ask him to agree that the Government will accept the amendment so that we can get on to the remaining business before us.

Mr. Rifkind: If I thought that the amendment was necessary. I would agree to it. I am afraid that I do not accept that it is necessary. It would therefore not be right to agree to it.

Mr. Milan: I will say no more. The Minister is being extremely silly. We shall simply have to take this matter to a Division. It does not do any good to the Minister's reputation, which is at reasonable level regarding his common sense, to talk in the specious manner in which he has addressed the Committee on this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

CITATION AND EXTENT

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
This is a formal amendment, as the note at the end of the Bill indicates. The provision was inserted by another place to avoid questions of privilege and it is appropriate at this stage to delete it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Lords amendments to Commons amendment considered.

The Lords agree to the amendment made by the Commons—after clause 77, insert the following new clause:

Homosexual Offences

.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a homosexual act in private shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of twenty-one years.

(2) A male person who is suffering from mental deficiency which is of such a nature or degree that he is incapable of living an independent life or of guarding himself against serious exploitation cannot in law give any consent which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, would prevent a homosexual act from being an offence, but a person shall not be convicted on account of the incapacity of such a male person to consent, of an offence consisting of such an act if he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that male person to be suffering from such mental deficiency.
(3) Section 97 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 (prohibition on men on the staff of a hospital, or otherwise having responsibility for mental patients, having sexual intercourse with women patients) shall have effect as if any reference therein to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman included a reference to committing a homosexual act.
(4) Subsection (1) above shall not prevent a homosexual act from being an offence under any provision of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957.
(5) In this section, "a homosexual act" means sodomy or an act of gross indecency by one male person with another male person.
(6) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) above, it shall be an offence to commit or to be party to the commission of, or to procure or attempt to procure the commission of a homosexual act—

(a) in public;
(b) without the consent of any party to the act;
(c) with a person under the age of twenty-one years or
(d) where the act is committed on board a United Kingdom merchant ship wherever it may be, by a male person who is a member of the crew of that ship with another male person who is a member of the crew of that ship or any other United Kingdom merchant ship.

(7) In this section, "member of the crew" in relation to a ship, includes the master of the ship; "United Kingdom merchant ship" means a ship registered in the United Kingdom habitually used or used at the time of the alleged offence for the purposes of carrying passengers or goods for reward.
(8) It shall be an offence to procure or attempt to procure the commission of a homosexual act between two other male persons.
(9) From the commencement of this section a person who commits or is party to the commission of an offence under subsection (6) or subsection (8) above shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both and on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3


months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 289B of the 1975 Act).
(10) It shall be a defence to a charge of committing a homosexual act under subsection (6)(c) above that the person so charged being under the age of 24 years who had not previously been charged with like offence, had reasonable cause to believe that the other person v% as of or above the age of twenty-one years.
(11) A person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of another from male prostitution or who solicits or importunes any male person for the purpose of procuring the commission of a homosexual act within the meaning of subsection (5) above shall be liable:

(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or
(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(12) Premises shall be treated for the purposes of section 13 and 14 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 as a brothel if people resort to it for the purpose of homosexual acts within the meaning of subsection (5) above in circumstances in which resort thereto for hetrosexual practices would have led to its being treated as a brothel for the purposes of those sections.
(13) No proceedings for an offence to which this subsection applies shall be commenced after the expiration of twelve months from the date on which that offence was committed This subsection applies to:

(a) the offences mentioned in subsections (6) and (8) above; and
(b) any offence under subsection (11) above which consists of soliciting or importuning any male person for the purpose of procuring the commission of a homosexual act.".

Lords Amendment: No. 1, after subsection (1) insert—

"An Act which would otherwise be treated for the purposes of this Act as being done in private shall not be so treated if done—

(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or
(b) in a lavatory to which the public have, or are permitted to have, access whether on payment or otherwise."

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Rifkind: These amendments were introduced in another place when their Lordships considered the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) which was approved by this House on a free vote on Report.
The purpose of the Lords amendment is, first, to clarify the meaning of the words "in public" in the clause in relation to homosexuality. In particular, it ensures that homosexual behaviour will constitute an offence when more than two people are present, and when it takes place in a public lavatory. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential drafting amendments.
I am sure that the House will agree that the amendments are sensible. They bring the Scottish position fully into accord with that south of the border, which was the purpose of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. I am sure that the provisions will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Bruce Milian: The amendments are purely clarifying amendments and do not affect the substance of the provision which the House passed on a free vote. The amendments are compatible with the decisions that the House took and should be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

STONEFIELD VEHICLES, CUMNOCK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. George Foulkes: I am glad that we are able to take the Adjournment debate at this early hour because the future of the Stonefield Vehicles factory at Cumnock has generated a great deal of national interest throughout the United Kingdom. As we have extra time I know that many hon. Members from both sides of the House will contribute valuable arguments.
When I was walking through the corridors someone said to me that in this place on this memorable date, because of my name, it was an appropriate time for fireworks. The issue should set the House alight. There is a record of Government disinterest and neglect. I say that to the Under-Secretary of State more in sorrow than in anger.
On a number of occasions it was suggested to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary that they should visit the factory, see the vehicle and acquire the enthusiasm that I and the workers at Stonefield have about its potential. The Secretary of State told Ayr trades council that he would certainly visit the factory. The Under-Secretary told me earlier that he certainly hoped to visit it. Even the South Ayrshire Conservative and Unionist Association wrote to the Under-Secretary of State urging him to go and see the potential of the Stonefield vehicle for himself. The hon. Gentleman did not take advantage of that offer.
Stonefield Vehicles was the most important element in the investment of the Scottish Development Agency, which in its turn is undoubtedly one of the most important aspects of industry for which the Under-Secretary is responsible. We therefore see a record of neglect and disinterest by the Under-Secretary.
The vehicle was designed and developed in Scotland. It is an example of positive Scottish initiative, an example of the new technology that the Government say they are trying to encourage and which Scot-

land is now in danger of losing. I commend the enthusiasm of the Stonefield action group, the former workers of the factory who have formed themselves into a body to try to preserve Stonefield in Cumnock and find someone to take over the factory. They came to Westminster. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the House who came to see them today. The representatives of Cumnock and Doon Valley district council all travelled south because of their strong belief in the future of the vehicle. The former workers are desperately trying to find a buyer. Their visit here today was an attempt to make more widely known the advantages of the vehicle. We were privileged to have a visit by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor—one cannot have one without the other. They saw the vehicle. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary and the Prime Minister, who were all invited, felt unable to come along.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) asked me helpfully, during one of our earlier discussions today about Stonefield Vehicles, what the company needs. It principally needs a substantial further investment of funds.
Let us consider the story so far. Already £4¾ million of public money has been invested in Stonefield. The development stage was almost complete. After 18 months of rigorous trials the Ministry of Defence had given its approval. That approval was barely four months old, and the first substantial orders were beginning to come through, when the Government threw the company's future into jeopardy.
The previous Government—my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and his right hon. and hon. Friends—had clearly indicated that in order for Stonefield Vehicles to progress logically it needed £6 million with continuing support through all its phases until it reached the stage of making a profit and was operating at full capacity. However, after the general election the Conservative Government decided to change the SDA's guidelines. I must make it clear that it was the Government's decision that put Stonefield Vehicles where it is today. The SDA's new guidelines removed the social responsibility that previously existed so that no


longer must the SDA consider unemployment or social conditions in the area when making investment.
I do not often quote the Investors Chronicle, and even less frequently do I quote Edinburgh bankers. However, an Edinburgh banker in that journal said:
The agency does have access to resources which would allow them to put far more money into their kind of investment than even we as a big merchant bank could. We deal with commercial lending. They have a much longer view and think more in terms of development finance, equity or debenture stock. It is not altogether an enviable role because they can end up with all sorts of cases which the normal market would not touch … But they have to take into account this wider social obligation.
Money could come from other sources, but that was an important element in the SDA's finance. Otherwise, why have the SDA?
The other part of the new guidelines for the SDA was the necessity to find a private sector participant whenever possible. I draw the attention of the House to the passage that states:
it should not invest in any enterprise for which sufficient and appropriate private sector money is ascertained by the Agency to be available
The corollary of that is that if private finance is not available it is appropriate for the SDA to provide the money. I ask the Minister to consider whether we might not have reached the stage where he and the SDA should reconsider whether private finance is genuinely available. It may be some time before we reach that point.
The plug was pulled out by the Government at a crucial stage in the company's development—before it had reached the important stage of breaking even and eventually making a profit. The company had a great product. It has been acknowledged by everyone, including the Secretary of State—and perhaps even the Minister—to be the best in its class. Many people have said that, and I have read it in many professional and technical journals. It has potential markets. Without a guaranteed future the potential orders cannot be expected to solidify. That point was mentioned by some Conservative Members earlier today.
It is remarkable that up to the time when the Government created the prob-

lems the company had come close to clinching a major £81 million order in Malaysia, was negotiating a major deal in Kenya, and had begun to develop contacts in the Middle East and elsewhere. Lest anyone doubt the truth of that—it is reputed that the Minister has indicated doubt—I confirm that I have spoken to two people who have shown interest in purchasing Stonefield. Inevitably, they checked on the market. They confirm that the contracts are at the stage claimed by the management of Stonefield. The Minister may shake his head, but they are independent people who have no reason to say otherwise. Indeed, they have every reason to be doubtful about any potential orders before embarking upon such an investment.
If we were in Japan, or some other country that takes seriously State assisance to such industries, the company would receive orders from the Ministry of Defence. That point has been raised by a number of Members during our discussions. I hope that in the light of this opportunity for debate the Minister will not stick to a prepared text. Will he seriously consider, especially as the moratorium on defence spending has ended, returning to the Ministry of Defence and asking whether there is not now some requirement for that excellent vehicle? If only the company had one or two relatively small orders from the Ministry of Defence, Stonfield—in whatever form it emerges—could go to Ministries in other countries and say not only that the vehicle had the approval of the Ministry of Defence but that the Ministry had shown its enthusiasm by purchasing. Regrettably, all that we have at present is the stamp of approval. We need positive orders. I hope that the Minister will indicate that the Government will take action on that point.
The Government's action in pulling out at this time was the main problem for Stonefield. The House need not take only my word for that. Some hon. Members in the Chamber are members of the Public Accounts Committee. The verdict of that Committee was very clear. It judged that the Government's action had a marked effect on the company's sales effort. It concluded:
We can only regret that there was not sufficient flexibility in the provision of public finance to enable the successful development


of this vehicle to proceed smoothly to the production phase in order to safeguard the substantial investment of public funds already made.
As I said earlier, £4 million of public funds has been put into Stonefield. Is it not sensible to put in that additional amount of money which will get it to the productive phase and to the stage where it is likely to make a profit? Otherwise we are losing the £4¾ million that has already been put in.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley.: My hon. Friend might care to bear in mind the different views of the Government towards financing motor vehicle projects. He has mentioned a relatively small amount of money of which this widely praised vehicle was deprived. At the same time, shortly before the Summer Recess the Government announced finance of £14 million for the De Lorean motor car venture in spite of the fact that no car has yet been made and that there are no vehicles in production. Production there has been delayed on three occasions, yet the taxpayers' total contribution is now approaching £60 million. In my view, there is a stark contrast there.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because a number of people in Scotland have raised it. It is a question which the Under-Secretary might answer. Why is it that so much more money can go into De Lorean, which has no real prospects on the market, when we are asking for a much smaller amount of money to go into a Scottish development, for which the Minister has responsibility, in respect of which there is a clearly proven market? That is the comparison, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it.
I should like to try to anticipate some of the criticisms about the Stonefield operation which might cone from the Minister, because they have certainly come from elsewhere. It has been said that the factory makes losses in the development stage, but what young company does not? Is not that part of setting out on a new enterprise? It has been said that the product range is wider than desired and that the prototypes have been custom-built to different specifications for each market. It has been said that the production costs are high. Of

course they are high when volumes are low. However, when there are large orders and when break-even capacity has been reached, unit costs will fall. The product range will become much narrower when it is seen where the demand is and we do not have the wide range of products that are available at the development stage.
The Minister's implicit assumption is that a complicated entrepreneurial project, which this is, can cover its costs from the year zero. Clearly that is not the case. It is ludicrous to suggest that. It shatters the myth that Conservative Members have any conception about how business works. The Scottish Development Agency's view—and this is a key to the future success of whatever may come out of Stonefield—is that the marketing of the vehicle is key, and that it is no use merely producing good vehicles in Cumnock if the company cannot get access to the markets and sell the vehicles in them. All other things, such as finance to keep it going and Ministry approval, are important, but the company needs these markets.
However, the Government have recently urged the Scottish Development Agency to look for one possible buyer who has both the finance and that kind of marketing contact. That is not easy to find at the best of times, but with the current recession which Government policies have induced, and particularly when we are looking at vehicle manufacture, it becomes much more difficult. I suggest that there are somewhat more hopeful options. Perhaps the marketing skills could be bought in. Perhaps some agency which has particular skills in marketing could be used as an agent for Stonefield Vehicles in Cumnock, which would allow production to be carried out by the productive unit in Cumnock while an agency was brought in to carry out the marketing.
It is again evidence of the Government's lack of interest, lack of flexibility and indecent haste in this matter that when the Scottish Development Agency had to call in the receiver in August, they did not allow it to look at this other kind of option. They were looking for one buyer who could carry out all the functions that might make Stonefield successful.
In another context the Minister has told us that he is willing—and this is genuinely helpful—to consider extending backing from public funds, but not if there is no prospect of orders in adequate qantities. How does he expect Stonefield, particularly in its present position, where the work force has been put on the dole and the sales force has been disbanded, ever to get orders?
If the Under-Secretary of State does not respond positively today, he will have to answer to the people of Scotland. It is amazing how this issue has excited the imagination of people in Scotland. The Under-Secretary has slightly misjudged the issue, which he probably thought would go away quietly. He has underestimated the potential of the vehicle. I hope that in the light of the evidence that he has heard in this debate, and in view of the pressure that has been put on hon. Members, he will recognise that he has made a mistake and change his mind and consider alternatives.
What are the alternatives? In the light of what I have said, I urge the Gevernment and the SDA to reconsider their financial commitment to this firm. I propose the formation of a consortium to raise the necessary finance. I ask the Government and the SDA to take the inititive and hold urgent consultations with banks, financial institutions and other interested people.
Earlier I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie) who said that when he was Minister of State he did not wait for people to put in offers to take over companies which unfortunately went into liquidation. He, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craighton (Mr. Milian), the then Secretary of State for Scotland, and his predecessor, the former Member for Kilmarnock, now Lord Ross of Marnock, found the people to take over such companies. They took an active, positive, interventionist role. I submit that the role of the Under-Secretary of State, with his responsibility to industry, should be active, not passive. He should encourage—

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): Successive Governments have realised the extreme difficulties to economic recessions and their effects on industry. My hon. Friend has hit on a

valid point, namely, that the Labour Government went out of their way to get people, either from the public or private sector, to take an interest in companies going into receivership. For instance, a factory in my constituency would not have existed had it not been for the pressures from the Labour and trade union movement, and even Ministers at that time who tried to find interested people to help. That factory, the chipboard factory at Cowie, went into receivership a few years ago and is now a viable concern. The Under-Secretary of State is trying to take credit for that. It is no great credit to him. That factory is now a viable concern because of the initiatives of the Labour Government. I wish that the Under-Secretary would now show similar initiatives with regard to Stonefield.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend has highlighted the general point by giving a specific example—a good example. Perhaps the Under-Secretary is worried about the public spending implications. I know that he and his leader—his leaderene—are concerned about the public sector borrowing requirement and public investment. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who has recently been quoted often by Labour Members, said that the Government should invest in wealth-producing ventures, not in new job creation schemes where people are paid to break stones or to be under-productive. If necessary, we want the Government to borrow money to invest in wealth creation, and there is nothing more potentially wealth-creating than an enterprise such as Stonefield.
I know that there are other hon. Members who want to discuss different aspects of this matter before the Under-Secretary of State replies, but I seriously urge the Under-Secretary of State, in the light of all the representations that have been made to him, to give some hope to the people of Cumnock tonight. It is an area in which there is 15½ per cent. unemployment, rising rapidly, and in which there are unemployed miners who form a great and dedicated work force. What has the Under-Secretary of State to offer tonight to that dedicated work force?
I ask the Under-Secretary of State to throw out just a ray of hope and to say


that the Government will re-examine the prospects for defence contracts for Stonefield Vehicles; that the Government will not sit back and wait for someone to come but will use their own powers and those of the Scottish Development Agency to find someone—if necessary a consortium—to take over the factory at Cumnock and to keep Stonefield Vehicles for Cumnock, Scotland and the United Kingdom.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I am intervening at this stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker because it may be for the convenience of the House for me to reply now to the points raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). I am sure that there will be time available for other hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate. I have no desire to exclude them.
I should like at this point to reply to the main arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Bruce Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not trying to prevent the Minister from saying something helpful, if that is what he intends to do, but will it be in order for him to reply later to other contributions? It will be highly unsatisfactory if other points are made and there is no reply to them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Craws/law): I am sure that, by leave of the House, the Minister will be able to reply later to other contributions.

Mr. Fletcher: I was about to come to the point that, with the permission of the House, I shall be happy to answer any further points that may come up later.
I want to reply to the main charges that have been made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. I am delighted that he has taken this opportunity to give the House a chance to discuss the question of Stonefield Vehicles. I accept the deep concern and the sincerity of the interest that he has shown in the company. I assure him that it is equalled only by that of my right hon. Friend and myself. The hon. Gentleman can shake his head. I do not doubt his sincerity but there is no evidence on which he

can base any judgment of the work done by Ministers and officials in the Scottish Office—and by the Scottish Development Agency—to try to resolve this problem. To judge the enthusiasm or interest of Ministers by whether they drive around in vehicles or indulge in gimmicks of that kind may be typical of the superficiality of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, not just on this subject but on many other subjects in the House. I want to deal with the company in question and the desire of my right hon. Friend and myself to see it succeed.
If we had been indifferent to the company's fate it would not have lasted as long as it did. Considerable efforts were made by Scottish Office Ministers and officials to save the company, and significant sums of public money have been advanced to the company since this Government took office. My right hon. Friends and I have taken a very keen interest in the company's future and very much regret that the vehicle has failed to achieve the commercial success which was expected of it. Perhaps I may set out some of the background to the present position in order to put matters into a proper context.
I know that the argument is that there is a lot of interest in and enthusiasm for the vehicle. I have received letters and requests from a number of influential people as well as ordinary people, concerned about the matter and urging the Government to save the company. But none of these urgings has been accompanied by orders. Everyone says that it is a magnificent vehicle, including Labour Members and organisations in which they may be interested or involved, but no one comes along with an order for it. I ask the hon. Members to try to see the position in that context—at least for a moment.
The Scottish Development Agency first invested in the company in February 1977 and subsequently increased its stake, until the total funds provided to the company from the public purse now amount to about £5 million. It is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the SDA.
The technical merits of the vehicle have never been in doubt. It successfully completed very stringent testing by the Ministry of Defence, whose defence sales organisation has vigorously promoted the


vehicle at its own exhibitions of equipment. In September 1979 the agency requested approval from the Secretary of State to make a further investment of £2 million in the company to expand the marketing arrangements for the vehicle. After careful consideration my right hon. Friend and I agreed that the likely volume of sales would not be adequate to support the large-scale expense involved in providing a self-supporting network of marketing and back-up facilities which would be required and that, in any case, the £2 million further investment proposed would not be sufficient to provide such a network.

Mr. Foulkes: Mr. Foulkesrose—

Mr. Fletcher: I must make this point. If we had accepted the proposition that £2 million was necessary to provide the network and the back-up organisation to market the vehicle—

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fletcher: Just a second. I ask the hon. Gentleman to curb his impatience. I must finish this point. If we had accepted the case we would indeed have been guilty of an error of judgment, because it was our opinion that if the company were to set up the back-up sales and marketing network required to sell the vehicle, considerably more than £2 million would have been required.

Mr. Foulkes: The Under-Secretary has touched on the crucial point that I was making. He talks about a self-supporting network and a whole range of outlets specifically for Stonefield. I was saying that, because he insisted on that, because that was the narrow blinker through which the Scottish Office was looking at it, the Scottish Office did not look at the possibility of another company with marketing contacts for its own vehicles taking the Stonefield on board on an agency basis.

Mr. Fletcher: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is going to miss the point in that way. I listened to him very carefully. However, he is so busy trying to intervene that he is not listening to what I am saying.
The proposition was that with £2 million the company might set up its own

extensive marketing back-up and service organisation. Our argument was that to do that independently would require more than £2 million and in our opinion that was not the right way to go about it. We believed that it needed to ally itself to a commercial organisation—preferably with an existing network of this kind—and to come in on the back of that company or some similar organisation providing the sales and marketing expertise which we felt—I am convinced rightly—was needed to make a success of the project. We were offering advice on how the project might succeed. The view that we took has since been substantiated by experts in the motor vehicle industry.
The Scottish Development Agency, which had already recognised the marketing weaknesses in the company and the attraction of linking Stonefield with an industrial partner, had conducted tentative discussions with potential interests as early as 1978. My right hon. Friend and I, in recognition of the soundness of this approach, offered the extension of further funding of £600,000 to enable the agency to continue its search for a private partner. I must emphasise in this context that, however great its technical merits, any specialised product of this kind requires substantial and expert promotional and marketing support to achieve the volume of sales necessary to justify full-scale production and to recover costs. That was the view that we held then and that is the view to which we have held since. Incidentally, it is wrong for hon. Members to think that we said to the SDA "Go off and do it." The Scottish economic planning department was fully involved in supporting and helping the agency and still is, so far as the receiver is concerned. It is seeking to ensure that any possible interest is quickly followed up and examined to see whether the project might still bear fruit.
We were convinced that support could be provided only by the private sector where a sales organisation and expertise was already available, and that backing from public funds could not be maintained indefinitely with no prospect of orders in adequate quantities. Although I accept that it takes time, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to build up the volume of sales in a project of this sort, the fact is that fewer than 100 vehicles have actually been sold since full-scale


production became possible in May 1978. It is incorrect to suggest that it is only within the last year that full-scale production became possible. The starting date for production was May 1978. During that time fewer than 100 vehicles have been sold, whereas the company and the SDA estimate that to break even between 700 and 900 vehicles per annum would have to be sold.
Much has been said of the deadline which the agency was set to find a private sector partner. As I said, there had been a number of expressions of interest from possible partners even before the present Government took office, and the agency was therefore not starting the exercise from scratch. In deciding how much further funding to extend our aim was to ensure that the field of every possible private sector partner was thoroughly tested. Indeed, public funds continued to be made available after the initial £600,000 had been exhausted and until the end of July of this year when the agency decided to call in the receiver.
In the event, as a result of the previous approaches that I have mentioned, potential partners were identified, and as long as there was any chance at all that they would maintain their interest we continued to authorise the agency to keep the company in funds, mainly by extending the bank overdraft guarantee. This approach appeared to have borne fruit when Tozer Kemsley and Millbourn—TKM—took out a purchase option for £120,000 on condition that the agency put up a matching amount. This we readily approved and these funds were used to enable the company to continue trading while TKM carried out an assessment of the market possibilities for the vehicle.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: At the invitation of the Secretary of State for Defence I was one of the Members of Parliament who attended Exercise Crusader in the Rhine Army. At that time it was made very clear by the military that there were to be huge purchases of—I imagine—such vehicles. If Stonefield is not available, where will the military get the vehicles which it says are necessary and which are said—I cannot judge it—on military grounds to be absolutely

essential for our NATO commitment? If they do not come from Stonefield, where will they come from?

Mr. Fletcher: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a few moments, I shall come to the whole question of Ministry of Defence sales and the efforts that have been made in that respect. I was talking about the £120,000 option paid by TKM and the fact that this was matched by the agency with our ready approval.
We were all extremely disappointed, therefore, when TKM, with all its expertise in this field and in the knowledge that further public funds would be made available in the event of a TKM/Stonefield partnership, concluded that the sales prospects were not sufficiently promising to justify exercising its option to purchase. That decision itself confirms that there would be no point in the agency attempting to continue with the project alone and relying indefinitely on financial support from the taxpayer.
However, rather than put the company into liquidation the agency appointed a receiver, with the task of looking after the company's affairs and, in practice, to provide yet another breathing space in which to attract a suitable partner. The company's future is now in the hands of the receiver. If a private buyer comes forward with a viable proposition to continue production in Scotland which would qualify for Government financial support we would be delighted to consider it at that date.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire suggested that we should take some further initiative, such as using a consortium of bankers. I can tell him that funding of the company is not the difficulty, as judged from the public sector or, indeed, as I understand it, from the private sector. The difficulty is finding a marketing partner for the company that can produce the orders without which the company cannot succeed no matter what funds are made available from the public sector or the private sector. It is incorrect to suggest that the company has been facing a financial problem. After two and a half years of trading it has been unable to get anything approaching the volume of orders that could justify the investment of further funds.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a consortium should consist not only of those putting in the funds but of those who have marketing contacts? If there were a positive initiative from the Scottish Office or the SDA to bring the two groups together, that would be more likely to succeed than if the two groups were left on their own.

Mr. Fletcher: Even though the company is in the hands of a receiver, there are still one or two parties who are interested in the company. We are happy to encourage that. The hon. Gentleman speaks of Ministers not taking the initiative. We are fully aware of the interests that exist, and arrangements of the sort that he has suggested are still being considered by those in the private sector. Such schemes are still being discussed with the receiver. We are fully aware of these schemes and propositions. I do not know at this stage whether they will bear fruit and lead to anything positive. We are happy to keep things going if there is any prospect of such a scheme coming forward.
A great deal has been said about the vehicle. It has attracted a great deal of admiration. Unhappily, admiration alone does not sell vehicles. Sales have been disappointing and well below expectations. There have been a number of expressions of interest in the vehicle from Kenya, Malaysia and Greece, but none of these expressions has developed beyond that stage, beyond an expression of interest.
Contrary to what has been reported by the media, there were no substantial orders on the point of being signed when the decision to appoint a receiver was taken. Had there been anyone talking seriously to the company and about to order some vehicles, that would have changed things completely. I know that the hon. Gentleman has read much in the press about these matters and I suppose that he has said a lot to the press. However, it has been dangerously misleading to those whose jobs depend on the company for those as ill-informed as the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to suggest that orders are on the point of being taken when nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Under-Secretary of State accept in good faith from me

that I have spoken personally to two people who have been in touch with the agents in Malaysia who have been negotiating the purchase, that the order was on the point of being completed and that there is still the possibility of the order being completed? I have spoken to two people who have told me that in good faith. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that in good faith?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not doubt for a moment that the hon. Gentleman has spoken to two persons who have told him that they were on the point of doing something or other. I can tell him that the company, the agency and the Scottish economic planning department—indeed, all those involved with the facts of this case—are unable to support what the hon. Gentleman has suggested in respect of orders. No orders were on the point of being signed when the company was handed over to the receiver. If any substantial orders had been available, that would have altered the circumstances. There was no benefit for the Government in suggesting that a receiver might be appointed if there was any prospect whatsoever of the company remaining in business.
It is possible—this relates to the intervention of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—that some of the potential orders might have become firm had the Ministry of Defence been seen to have placed a substantial order with the company. My right hon. Friend pursued the possibility of an MOD order very strongly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Ministry of Defence has purchased a small number of the vehicles for specific purposes, but has no immediate need for large numbers of such vehicles. Nor is it likely to have such a need for several years, since its existing stock of vehicles is sufficient for its purposes until the mid-1980s. The Ministry of Defence could not be reasonably expected to determine the exact specifications of any successor machine for its 1-ton Land-Rover so far in advance of its requirement. In addition, it must give proper consideration to the merits of any other British competitors in the field at that time.
During an intervention comparisons were drawn between the Government's attitude to the De Lorean project in Nor-


thern Ireland and the view taken about Stonefield. Like many of the commentaries made in this affair, those comparisons have not been based on valid grounds. The additional funds recently provided for the De Lorean project represented the Government's honouring of a contractual agreement, entered into by the previous Labour Administration. The major differences are that De Lorean has firm orders on its books from car retailers in the United States of America for at least one full year's production, and has attracted private funding for research work on the vehicle's design. Therefore, the House will accept that there is a significant difference in comparison with the unfortunate situation at Stonefield.

Mr. Cryer: I must correct the hon. Gentleman, because he is perpetuating a myth. De Lorean has not provided basic research and design work. The taxpayer has paid for that through a contract with Lotus. The comparison is not as way out as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman was inaccurate when he said that the stories of Stonefield and De Lorean were similar. De Lorean has firm orders for its first year of production and has attracted private funding for research on the vehicle's design. The two situations are clearly not comparable. If Stonefield had been in the same position as regards orders or private funding, its future would have been much brighter.
I should stress that my right hon. Friend and I are fully conscious of the importance to Scotland of advanced technology projects, such as the Stonefield vehicle. I very much regret that its obvious excellence has not been equalled by its commercial performance. We had to ask ourselves why that should be so. It was not because of any deficiencies in the machine. In the end, we had to accept—and the hon. Gentleman must accept—that the lack of firm orders, despite many expressions of interest, was attributable to only one thing, namely, a lack of proper marketing and support outlets, and the organisation required to provide them on a world-wide scale.
As a result, we had to decide whether such facilities could be provided by the agency alone. We concluded that to do

so would be extremely impractical and would push the selling price of the vehicle to too high a price to be competitive. Therefore, the course that had been determined, to establish a link with an existing marketing concern, was the only course that was feasible and sensible if the project's future was to be ensured.
We did not reach that decision out of a desire to see an end to a publicly financed enterprise, but in recognition of commercial reality. Hon. Members on the Front and Back Benches would do well to address themselves to that reality. We still hope that a potential partner will emerge to save the project, and we shall help towards such a solution in any way open to us.
I was asked whether I could give any ray of hope. The company is now in the hands of the receiver, and is available at a knock-down price. If no one comes forward with a proposition that will make it viable, on one, either in the House or elsewhere, will be able to claim that the Government did not give the Stone-field company every possible opportunity to succeed.

Mr. David Lambie: I am glad to be able to participate in the Adjournment debate tonight along with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). As an Ayrshire Member, I know the problems of Stone-field Vehicles because these are the problems that face most of the other industries in our area.
I am very disappointed at the Minister's statement tonight. He still has not answered the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. Why did the Government pull the plug out from the company four months after it had received Ministry of Defence approval for the vehicle? Why did the Government break an agreement that had already been made by the previous Labour Government and the Scottish Development Agency to fund more than £6 million for the complete development of this company? Why did the Tory Government, when things seemed to be going well and when orders were appearing on the horizon, cut off about £2 million that had been allocated by the SDA in association with Labour Government Mini-


sters? The Minister has not answered that point.
It is right to say that there were no orders. There are many projects in their development stage for which there are no orders. It is wrong for the Minister to say that the company could not show a profit. No company shows a profit during the development period. When the end of the development is reached and the product is ready to be marketed, previous losses can be recouped. That is the usual commercial proposition carried out by any company.
I wish to make another appeal to the Minister tonight to stick to the orginal agreement made by the Labour Government and the SDA and give this company a chance. I have seen many receivers called in during my 10 years as a Member of Parliament and I know that the biggest fear now is that the vultures who usually appear in such circumstances will buy the plans and the blueprints of this vehicle and that they will take them away and develop the vehicle either in England or on the Continent. Once again, we will see a project being researched in Scotland and developed south of the border or even outside the United Kingdom. That is one of the greatest fears of the work force.
At the beginning of this month I visited Cumnock and met the work force of Stonefield Vehicles. When I was there I had vivid memories of the last time I was outside that factory, because that factory was once occupied by Scottish Aviation as an extension of its works at Prestwick. As a Member of Parliament interested in the future of Scottish Aviation at that time, I remember that we had to ask the work force in Cumnock to close that factory in order to concentrate the labour force and the company's activity at the main factory in Prestwick. We did that in order to try to keep Scottish Aviation going. At that time the work force agreed to take that action and we were fortunate at a later stage in getting the late Mr. McKelvie to come to that factory and build up the Stonefield Vehicles project.
Scottish Aviation was saved by a Labour Government intervening to include it in the nationalisation proposals for British Aerospace. There are, therefore, still 1,400 to 1,500 people working at Prestwick, all because of a political

decision taken by a Labour Government. We ask the Minister to show the same initiative and speak on behalf of industry and development in Scotland. He can get the project going again if the Government will allocate the £2 million.
In Scotland at present ¼ million people are unemployed, which costs the Government £1·2 billion per annum. Instead of paying unemployment and losing income tax and national insurance contributions, the Government should pay Stonefield Vehicles the £2 million that they stole from it. In the long run that will save money.
Where will the 100 men go if they lose their jobs? In South Ayrshire the main industry of mining is in decline. Throughout Ayrshire over 22,000 people are unemployed which is one-tenth of the unemployment in Scotland. They will find it hard to find other jobs. At the labour exchange at Cumnock unemployment stands at 15·3 per cent. In the Secretary of State's constituency of Ayr, unemployment stands at 12·2 per cent. In my constituency, the unemployment rate in Irvine is 17·5 per cent. and in Kilbirnie, 26 per cent. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) unemployment is running at 14·2 per cent.
The men from Stonefield will be thrown on the scrap-heap of unemployment, when there is a project that could be developed for the benefit of the area and of Scottish industry generally.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the pleas from all sides of the political spectrum in Scotland, change his mind and grant the £2 million.
I have been in contact with the work force and management of the Scottish division of British Aerospace and know how important it is to get a Ministry of Defence contract. I do not understand why the Government have withdrawn support from Stonefield immediately after the Secretary of State for Defence gave approval for this vehicle. British Aerospace at Prestwick is awaiting a Government order for a communication plane for which the ideal candidate is Jetstream. The moratorium on defence expenditure is to be lifted next week. With his responsibility for industry in Scotland. I hope that the Miniser will, with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for


Scotland. make sure that that order is given to British Aerospace at Prestwick.
We know from leaks from the Scottish Office that the Secretary of State took the question of military orders for Jet-stream to the Cabinet. Those leaks were in order to build up the reputation of the Secretary of State. The Prime Minister stated that, if it was a choice between an American or a British aeroplane, she was on the side of the British aeroplane.
We were told that the Ministry of Defence was to order 14 Jetstreams, which would have given us a solid base for aircraft development. Unfortunately, the moratorium on defence expenditure was imposed immediately after that and we are still awaiting confirmation of the order.
The Secretary of State has a constituency interest in the future of British Aerospace at Prestwick. Will the Under-Secretary give us an assurance that we will get the Jetstream order? It will guarantee the jobs of the 1,400 employees and will increase the work force over the next four or five years to 2,000. That would give us something and it would salve the conscience of Ministers who are doing nothing in Scotland to help us.
All that Ministers are doing is going round factories where they think they will get good publicity. They keep away from places where they will get bad publicity and there are few factories in my area that Ministers could visit. I make my plea on behalf of the work force not only at Stonefield but at British Aerospace.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will be within your recollection that the Under-Secretary read out a prepared statement from the Secretary of State for Defence. Is it not at least a matter of parliamentary manners, even if it is not in "Erskine May", that when a Minister's statement is read out he should at least be represented in the Chamber, even if he cannot be present himself? Surely the debate has taken such a turn that if we are to have a Government reply it might well come from the Secretary of State for Defence or at least the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army. Could the Government Whip possibly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There are many things that the Chair does not think are good manners, but it is not for the Chair to rule on the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It is not for the Chair to decide who answers debates.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order on who is to reply to the debate. The hon. Gentleman does not need to answer the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. John MacKay: During the summer we have all read in the press and watched on television the campaign waged on behalf of Stonefield. I was interested to attend a meeting in the House this morning, held under the aegis of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), because I was genuinely concerned about what I had read in at least one newspaper.
I understand the concern felt by Ayrshire Members. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has listed the unemployment problems in his constituency. I understand that Ayrshire has serious problems. However, I also saw during the summer the hon. Member for South Ayrshire taking part in campaigns that would close the Hunterston plant and put 1,200 people out of work. That makes it seem a little odd that he should make such loud complaints about this problem.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) made his own constituents unemployed at Corpach.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) shows an amazing ignorance of Scottish geography if he thinks that Corpach is in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman was not a geography teacher. Like me, he was a mathematics teacher, and I only hope that his mathematics are better than his geography.
There are some serious problems about the Stonefield plant. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary underlined them, but


they are worth repeating. In November, there were no orders for this truck on the order books. There were many inquiries and potential orders, but that is not the same as real orders. Hon. Members have been to look at the Metro. It would be wrong for the dealer at whose premises we went to see the Metro to assume that we would place firm orders. Some of us may place orders; some will not. It is a real problem that in November there were no firm orders for the vehicle.
It is equally true that in the previous two and a half years, for a portion of which the Labour Party was in power, only 92 trucks were built, ordered and sold. No great number went to one particular buyer. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles), a hill farmer, who, unfortunately, cannot be present for this debate, has informed me that he tried out the truck but found it too expensive from a capital point of view and too expensive to run for hill farmers to consider as a possible vehicle in the hills.
That brings me to the military use. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire did not make much of a reply that appeared in Hansard for yesterday. I had read previously that the Ministry of Defence had given the vehicle a certificate of approval. That seemed a wide approval. In Hansard, however, in reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force gave details of the Ministry's approval to the Stonefield vehicle. The reply gave me a different slant from that which I had read in the newspapers over the last three months. The reply stated:
The Stonefield vehicle was evaluated at the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment under the sponsorship of the Ministry of Defence's sales organisation to establish its suitability as a towing vehicle for the 105 mm light gun. The trials were carried out at the company's expense to obtain the endorsement of the defence sales organisation that the vehicle was suitable for this purpose with a view to overseas sales. The endorsement was given on 22 August 1979."—[Official Report, 3 November, 1980; Vol. 991, cc. 477–78.]
I may be wrong but that seems a much more limited endorsement of the vehicle by the Ministry of Defence than that which I was led to believe had been given.
I should still like my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to urge the Ministry of Defence to consider buying the vehicle for that limited purpose and also to look at the vehicle for other purposes.
It is strange that some Opposition Members, who are most vociferous in their views against the Ministry of Defence, now want the Ministry to spend money. I accept, however, that they have a right to adopt two standpoints.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a question of accuracy, the hon. Gentleman purports to claim that the quotation that he has read out is a very limited and highly qualified endorsement of the vehicle by the Ministry of Defence. Is it not the case that this is what was sought and that this is what was given, and that it is a very high-grade endorsement. It does not mean what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. MacKay: I accept that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has suddenly become a defence expert and is enthusiastic about defence. On the basis of the answer, it seems a high endorsement but still means that the vehicle has been endorsed for a limited function.

Mr. Bill Walker: Hon. Members agree that it is important that defence procurement orders should be placed with British companies wherever possible, and certainly with Scottish companies wherever possible. I believe that the House is united in that view. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the Boulton and Paul Defiant was classified by the Air Ministry, as it then was, as a fighter and accepted. It was not very successful. The Albemarle was classified as a bomber transport and was not very successful.
If this vehicle is what it is claimed to be, it should live up to its role. We do not want the Ministry of Defence to buy items to be used by our troops if they are not good enough for the job. I hope that the vehicle is good enough. It is important not to order something because it happens to be made in Scotland if it is not up to the job.

Mr. MacKay: I thank my hon. Friend for explaining that a Ministry of Defence endorsement is not necessarily Holy Writ.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. MacKay: I do not wish to go into the question of endorsement. We can agree across the Chamber that, for whatever role the Ministry of Defence endorses the vehicle, it is important that the Minister works on the Ministry of Defence to try to achieve orders for it in that role and to examine other possible roles. If I were convinced that £2 million extra was all that was required, I might be urging the Minister to go ahead with the £2 million and to get on with it, However, I fear that if I did that and my hon. Friend agreed with me, as he does most of the time, and listened to my advice, next year the hon. Member for South Ayrshire would host another meeting requesting another £2 million.
The Minister made clear tonight, in a way which has not been made clear before, that the £2 million is specifically for the marketing of the machine and not for its production. If the production level has to be between 700 and 900 vehicles a year to break even, the company will need a fair cushion of money in the next two to four years to cover the significant losses involved in building up from no orders last November to between 700 and 900 a year. In spite of the obvious appeal of a job creation project on such a scale, I should be reluctant for public money to be poured year after year into this project in the hope that next year the company might break even and not have to come back for more.
It is disturbing that the search for private partners is still on. Perhaps the private investors are not convinced about all the potential orders. The Minister's quotation from TKM was interesting. Perhaps the debate will help by giving the problem publicity. I wonder whether the banks and other financial institutions are examining Stonefield.
The problem is one of marketing. If the marketing does not work, a company can produce the best goods in the world

but they will remain at the end of the factory. I wonder whether the future of the vehicle is so uncertain that only the poor British taxpayer can take the risk and pour in money year after year.
I hope that the Minister will reiterate the assurance that he and the SDA are taking an active part in seeking a private buyer. Opposition Members suggest that the Minister is being purely passive. I hope that he will underline what he has already said. I hope that he will also underline, for the sake of the publicity from the debate, that if a private buyer or consortium expresses interest the Government and the SDA will give it every possible assistance to get the project going.
I hope that when that private buyer or consortium comes along the Minister will do all in his power to persuade the Minister of Defence to order some of the vehicles so that other people in the world will take confidence from that order. If he does that he will have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. William McKelvey: If Stonefield Vehicles is allowed to fold, the people of Ayrshire, and certainly the people at Stonefield Vehicles, will see that as another nail deliberately hammered by the Under-Secretary into the coffin of industry in the area. That is how they see the position now, and if the Under-Secretary went up to meet them he would understand and appreciate their point of view. That was certainly the view that they expressed to me today when I met the deputation.
The people in Ayrshire feel that the Government have something against the people of Scotland. I do not necessarily agree with them, but their view is understandable, given the industrial statistics in Ayrshire. Unemployment there is catastrophic. It is 14 per cent. in my area, which is considered one of the best parts. It goes up to 18 per cent. and even to 26 per cent. in the worst parts of Ayrshire. No Government can be proud of that record, whether or not they are prepared to pursue some crackpot monetarist scheme that is ill thought out and untried.
There are certain similarities and parallels between the position at Stonefield


Vehicles and an issue that we dealt with in the House not long ago—Massey Ferguson. The work force at Massey Ferguson was commended by the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for the dignity with which it accepted the sack. It was commended on having shown initiative and having travelled to London to state its case. It was given plenty of assurances of assistance, but ultimately no assistance came. The reason given was that it was impossible to provide aid for a multinational company. We were told that if that had not been so the finance might have been available. Stonefield Vehicles, however, is being deliberately starved by the Government of the finance that it needs to develop. The people of Ayrshire, and particularly those who work at Stonefield, will not forgive the Government for that.
It has been said that the Under-Secretary likes to be photographed in factories in order to gain publicity. There is nowhere for him to do that in Kilmarnock, Cumnock or Ayrshire generally. The Under-Secretary could be photographed at factories in Ayrshire, but the factories are only monuments that are gathering dust. Monsanto has disappeared. The factory still stands but is in mothballs. Skefco has disappeared. Again, the factory still stands, but it, too, is in mothballs. There is an endless catalogue of such factories, and I fear that we shall add Stonefield to it because the Under-Secretary has turned a deaf ear to our pleas.
If he had met the work force when it came to see us, he would have seen a film which demonstrated the versatility of the new truck. It has Ministry of Defence approval for towing guns. But with its versatility it can do much more. It can be used in agriculture, in forestry and in telecommunications. That is why it should be given the opportunity to live.

Mr. John Home Robertson: (Berwick and East Lothian): Does my hon. Friend agree that this vehicle can also be used in the fire service? I have been in touch with the firemaster of the Lothian and Borders fire brigade only today. It has one of these vehicles and it has made it abundantly clear that it would like to buy more, but it is constrained by Government spending cuts.

Mr. McKelvey: My hon. Friend raises a relevant point. District and regional councils throughout Scotland would dearly love to possess such vehicles, but they cannot afford them.
There were firm orders for the truck from Malaysia and Kenya, and they would have firmed up. The purchasers, however, would not buy the last Stonefield vehicles. They knew that the Government were about to withdraw finance from Stonefield and starve it of the funds that it needed. In those circumstances, it would be considered daft if they placed firm orders. We cannot blame them for that.
If the company had been given the £2 million originally promised, and if that promise had been honoured, the workers at Stonefield feel confident that they could have produced the goods and that the orders would have come in. That is the crux of the matter. They should be given that opportunity.
The people of Ayrshire and Scotland will watch the developments at Stone-field. Once more the Under-Secretary is seen as a purveyor of platitudes; his crocodile tears are noticed by them, as is his lack of action. They will remember that when the Government go to the country for votes. Labour has a two to one majority in the Scottish industrial areas and the Conservative Party will be completely and utterly annihilated in the same fashion as that in which it is trying to annihilate Stonefield.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. There is much more at stake than simply the question of Stone-field, serious though that is. For a long time we in Scotland have not been active enough in supporting Scottish industry at all levels and in all parties. I believe that, mistakenly, past Governments have supported industries that have no future; they were not new or creative but old and dying. Consequently, a pattern has emerged whereby it is now expected that when Governments take an interest in something it is almost a kiss of death. That is regrettable.
The Stonefield project should be considered carefully. It may surprise Opposition Members to know that I believe


that we would be letting down the Scottish people if we did not examine it in great depth, and was satisfied that we had taken action in a way that could be justified. I mentioned earlier that Ministry of Defence approval itself could be very narrow and, much worse, misleading and wrong. I cited the example of the Boulton and Paul Defiant, a fighter aircraft. It was not a success. It served on a few sorties successfully but then it became a kiss of death to fly in it. That machine was later used extensively by the Royal Air Force for tugging and towing. It was successful in that use. That is why I believe that we must look carefully at the Stonefield project.
If a vehicle is classified in a fairly narrow category, it may not be successful. There is a possibility that we could be drawing a definition so narrowly that the machine would never be given the opportunity to meet it. Defence procurement is important. It is an area that hon. Members have not considered carefully enough in the past. I say "carefully" because it is easy to write blank cheques. It is easy to say "Yes, it is a desirable project and because the defence people say that we want it at this time we should have it". I wonder sometimes whether the price of defence equipment and procurement should be considered more carefully.
I draw the attention of Opposition Members to the fact that many hon. Members in the House tonight are seriously concerned. We would not be here if we were not concerned. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is listening. If there is a future for the vehicle, we expect it to be kept in Scotland. We expect it to be kept in a way that will show the Scottish people that we have not let them down and that we have not allowed something with potential to go elsewhere. Equally, we must be able to say to our electorate that this is not another example of a Government pouring thousands of millions of pounds into a project that is not commercially viable. That is important. I believe in the sincerity of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). He has a duty to inform the Minister who the people are who have told him that definate orders exist. I understand his reluctance to name them in the House, but he has a

responsibility to give the information to my hon. Friend if only to ensure that the best interests of the people at Stonefield are looked after.
I believe that this debate will perform a useful function. If nothing else, I hope that it will come to the attention of prospective private purchasers who are interested in the knock-down price that we are told receivers always charge. That has not always been my experience of receivers, but it is a fact that receivers normally try to dispose of assets—in that I include the designs and the potential—at the best possible price in the interests of the creditors.
The appointing of a receiver is not normally the end of the road. It is an interim stage before the end of the road, and it frequently means that there is life thereafter. Often it is the only way out of a situation where management and the work force are unable to find viable commercial answers. The appointment of a receiver allows time for that to be changed. I hope that the situation at Stonefield will result in just that. All that is required to make the company viable is not an order from the Ministry of Defence, important as that is, but an act of faith by the private sector which says "There is a future here. We can see this. It means something."
I hope that a Scottish organisation will be able to do that. But it is perhaps more important to find the people to run the company.
Money is not the difficulty. The difficulty is finding the people with the commercial expertise, flair and ability to turn this potential opportunity into a real opportunity. I believe that Governments of all colours should not become involved in a situation such as this, which really calls for an entrepreneur if anything ever did. It calls for the chap who sees the potential. It is unfortunate that the individual who set up the project is no longer around, because, as we all know, the difference between success and failure is often the chap up the front—the individual responsible.
The debate has provided a welcome opportunity for hon. Members to discuss this matter, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire initiated it. It has given many of us an opportunity to look at the problem and


to see the wide ramifications which exist. There are lessons for all of us. In particular, there are lessons for industrial Scotland. That is really what we are concerned about. We are concerned about where the jobs will come from tomorrow, who will work in our factories and what they will manufacture.
It is easy to be critical and to say that someone has done nothing. However, we must remember that we have a responsibility because £4¾ million of taxpayers' money has already gone into this operation. Unless we can be satisfied that the company has a future and that it can be commercially viable it would be wrong to put more money into it. But that is not a reason for doing nothing. If anything, it is a reason for doing something. It is a reason for proving it conclusively, one way or the other.
The market can be tested with regard to the potential of those who want to put in money. It would not be expensive to send someone to Malaysia just to check on the orders that we understand are in the offing. We ought to consider that possibility, because it is not expensive in relation to the money which could be used.
I ask my hon. Friend to take note of the concern that is felt on both sides of the House. None of us wants to see this venture destroyed just for the sake of destruction. We would prefer it to be given life. However, I would not want it to be given life if it proved to a continuing and lasting drain on the taxpayer.

Mr. Bruce Milian: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) and by my other hon. Friends. I did not find the Minister's reply convincing, but he still has five minutes in which to try to produce better answers.
We are dealing here with a first-class vehicle. The Minister did not deny that, and that is the evidence from everyone who knows anything about it. The basic question is whether it has a real prospect of becoming a commercial success. The Government pulled the rug from beneath the company before giving it an opportunity to prove whether it could become a commercial success. The Minister gave

an inaccurate description of the timetable involved.
The company was established in January 1977; it was producing a completely new vehicle in factories that it took over in 1977. It was inevitable, and it was recognised from the start by the SDA and the Labour Government at that time, that the company would require a good deal of finance before it could become viable. In practice, because of the Government's dogmatic insistence that the SDA should find a private partner, this company has been brought down. It was not a lack of Government intervention, but unhelpful Government intervention that created the crisis that the company is now facing.
I am not against the idea that if the circumstances were right and if it could be achieved, private capital should be involved in the venture, but it is a high-risk venture and at present we are not operating in a congenial industrial climate. Industry is going down the drain everywhere. In Scotland we have a catastrophic industrial situation, and with the present high interest rates it is a particularly unpropitious time to find a private investor who is willing to take the sort of high risk that is involved in this venture.
The Government told the SDA that their assistance could not continue unless the SDA found a private investor immediately to bear a certain amount of the risk. It was that decision by the Government that brought about the present crisis. From the information that is available—although it is true that there was not a whole range of orders already available to the company—there were good prospects, whether in Kenya, Malaysia or elsewhere, for a vehicle that met the needs of a part of the market that was not satisfactorily catered for by a British manufactured vehicle. That could have been proved only if the company had had sufficient time, and had not been faced with Government intervention, to show whether it could achieve the orders that were necessary to keep it going.
This is a prime example of the sort of company for which the SDA was designed—a high risk venture with a good deal of initial development money, and with a real prospect of commercial success in an area that is meeting a demand


in the market and doing so with a product that is designed, developed and built in Scotland.
The Minister said that anyone who wishes to get in can do so at a knockdown price. That means that all the existing Government investment will be lost. He then said that anyone who goes in will receive Government assistance. Even if this route along which the Government are going is successful, it will cost them more than if they had maintained the company in its existing form and put in the necessary cash. What is far more likely to happen, at best, if someone comes in, is that it will be someone who is attracted by the knock-down price to take the patents and the skill and enterprise which have been put into the vehicle, and who will manufacture it somewhere other than in Scotland. If that is the result, it will be the direct responsibility of the Government.
It is not too late even now for the Government to intervene in a helpful way. I hope that the speeches made this evening will encourage the Government, even at this late stage, to do something actively to keep this very worthwhile and enterprising project in Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) referred to an agreement that there should be an investment of £6 million in the company. We have no knowledge of any such agreement. He must have made some mistake or error in suggesting that some prior commitment had been made or had been passed on to the Government. He made a point—as did his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan)—about the receivership. The phrase used was that the vultures would buy the plans and remove them from Scotland.
The receiver must get the best price he can, but the receiver knows that the Government are most concerned to ensure that any purchaser of the company will continue the business in Scotland. We have made that perfectly clear to the receiver. The receiver, when he was appointed, was fully aware of the very strong views that the Government and the SDA hold. I am sure that the debate

tonight will reaffirm the strong views held on each side of the House.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) that defence procurement is important. He said "Keep Stone-field in Scotland if there is a possible buyer, or if there is an opportunity to do so." I am happily repeating the assurance that I have given to the Opposition that we shall do that to the best of our ability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) wants my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself to urge the Ministry of Defence to buy. That is what we have been doing on the Stonefield project, but I have explained the difficulties of the Ministry of Defence. In this case it is not so much a matter of cash limits but that the requirements for vehicles of this kind will not come into being for some years
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) knows my views on Jetstream, but it is not really a matter for this debate.
The right hon. Member for Craigton wants better answers. He said that this is a first-class vehicle. We have never disputed that. He talked about the SDA investment. I agree that it was a good investment for the SDA to go into a company such as this on start-up, but the company has been capable of production since May 1978, and there must be a point in time when one must look at the orders that the company has achieved during that period. The figure, as we know, is less than 100 in two and a half years. Had there been any prospects at all of new and substantial orders being available, there would have been no problem on the part of the agency or of the Government in keeping the company going.
Despite the passion and the emotion on occasions generated by Labour Members. the commercial reality is there today—that the company was ready to produce the vehicle and had been for two and a half years but the number of orders was pitifully low and there were no prospects of any substantial orders in the pipeline.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's insistence on a commercial partner. What we were looking for—I believe that this is absolutely


right—was a commercial partner who could help to sell the vehicle and help to get orders for it. The SDA could not do that; the company could not do that. Although various efforts were made to hire people into the company to do it, these had not succeeded, and it seemed to us that we should try to get another partner to do so.
In July of this year the chief executive of the SDA said in his press statement:
The agency has already made prolonged and vigorous efforts to find a buyer or partner for the Stonefield project, and Government has supported the company financially during this search. Now that TKM can no longer proceed, and in the absence of any other potential purchaser, there is no alternative for the agency but to appoint a receiver.

I say to my hon. Friends who ask about the future that we take the view very strongly and repeat that Government support for a viable project—even at this late stage—that may emerge from the efforts of the receiver will be given, inasmuch as anything possible that can be done, not just to prolong the life of the company but to keep the business—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half and hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.